 鲜花( 5)  鸡蛋( 6)
|
本帖最后由 bigsnail 于 2012-8-4 10:50 编辑
X( }2 _' L; v' V" A8 N
" i/ D, r, Z& O饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。9 Q' Z: A: G5 N" m/ m! ^
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。. U6 Q8 {/ m; \6 z6 V) d2 w, `) n
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
1 u/ a- Z' n/ Z ~4 k' P+ j. L$ A9 ~' K, f
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html- b. R& T6 U% \& G) E3 A1 x
) o1 m* f t7 S6 [; u致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道 精选$ U' u& M# G, @9 l
1 ]" J0 {# O$ K2 f
英文原信附后,大意如下:' D; b7 W/ ?9 c& Y8 ^ r
/ K/ G0 n: z0 \1 p& f6 c) t1 D斐尔,4 b, ~" o v+ ]1 K
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
+ _+ @. f. R+ u$ Y7 t7 X8 G# uemail的人里面小部分也给我来信。
0 T% e& s0 l8 I" i1 r5 Z( b 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
j8 e; c7 u, X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
$ c7 w- Q7 ~/ C8 h9 ~7 ?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。8 N9 G0 a+ u4 G
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
* n# Z# O/ P; s, Y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: z2 B& {" j. R2 ~( `
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, w9 G" q8 _2 v
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。
0 i. Q5 l) l+ i: A: S, s6 F" 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5 p' F" q' ? \/ V5 `$ d
,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
9 ~# n" L ?# P”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
' m" p% M, H" E( }) T4 I' I, G 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. }/ ` V( |( r. P% m# q6 _) s
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" m( k/ [) D3 ^& G2 G
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。9 J5 _2 v3 Q. [2 m9 I
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& i9 t5 x- a, T+ |- H
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
$ a2 l5 c6 c' C% A6 d9 ?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
~1 v5 X$ H) j8 [: S4 ?" 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
8 y; ^9 S0 k( v, V7 b! _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
% I! d4 V5 @: h' N" H5 W 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
; H- k$ y& W& |; u. s% c! X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" c: x- @' Q/ Z6 s
。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: [! C0 p9 j _3 X9 }( T
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
8 l9 F9 a# \0 y! \0 a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. X, C* s+ v. M0 @
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 f v; U- a0 D# C/ X4 X
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
; n. P N$ X, c3 b) e7 ^同意见的专家。: D+ ]7 \& v- b: E1 o V
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% v8 Z- Y8 a( ^2 m; U, F
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3 ^4 g$ @ c6 ~" v+ `& h8 y9 c U6 ]
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. Y' _1 J( f' V0 C+ a0 n
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。 T& q2 p$ o3 }9 Z0 B5 K% p
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), F, x+ x2 V0 |# ]" U
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4 g6 h' A7 `5 S' A# N- A/ Y% `1 X
《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 Q' E$ V3 _' Q& C' Z这些被Callaway忽略。
' b. t; a5 Y- j. k& U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) F" M8 n3 _7 z* R: q
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
& |1 w: P8 Q* o' z) I2 p+ |- O教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
& O/ o# w9 o$ f4 O9 w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6 P0 D" b/ f2 @/ U+ f8 r) ^& [1 R
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( [0 k0 ^2 G, g% {& K8 ^6 b$ r7 q, 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
2 v* v) B/ s! k9 B+ y5 z+ `/ y q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 _* S( ?2 }& W7 O& ^' |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/ `0 W! M+ p+ q7 p7 t7 z$ k) q
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3 l4 u; Y$ t& }5 c9 y2 H
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( h. Y: ^$ \8 X3 R4 q5 k2 N2 `
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。& h. u; i/ v$ J3 ?: m! g# 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7 q" n3 r0 J2 X R, C' i0 ^
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
2 H$ E" l& D" j8 m; Y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
) `4 m# I2 r! E/ 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
8 w! A- r- ?1 p$ L. [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
2 f- L9 T' `* K" \4 ]1 i! Z而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。/ X( E6 a W+ ~0 f
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。' B" C$ ^( T5 q1 N" J8 v' X
- c2 P6 f$ x8 t: p6 R5 }& j1 B; v毅
: F7 u! e! z4 g( P1 W. K0 E- D北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
" m6 r5 ^& G& d5 t
/ l: n4 }3 f' R7 m附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结( \0 S# I2 @* _6 f( a# _# c" a
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email6 c' o: {* w" X, C
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见: A( n8 {5 f3 W* A1 a9 q
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见/ N# }, {4 q1 H# q
E+ T( r2 g0 r% |3 b# O
: `9 b; A/ s/ {" o9 M( N7 L; b, F4 ^+ _; i
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)" U" F v7 I# |" H2 ~1 c( w: B! o
Dear Phil,8 ], P& {; b, H8 f/ @% r3 Z6 U
You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s8 X* |7 M b) ]& w$ t5 m0 G- L
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
( R/ Q, D1 X/ v& ?% bhours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
/ s }# `, ^ v9 |- X2 Qyou.
/ c% j! h8 ]* O8 t* U If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have# m" l( H- d0 \5 T2 m2 b3 F3 u
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese$ y$ M$ d, I& o+ Z
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
s9 }# l, r7 Eworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature ~, @" R( l4 m7 `" ?$ M
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
! y4 D, i+ F1 o$ J" yseriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
/ N2 F" |3 r- d: O! Rpieces much more than the regular Western news media would.1 m% r2 x8 P( e
The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the# U1 v' `& w7 ]+ h G
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
" U/ e n1 f8 bnegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish1 _0 v. P: E" y$ O
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway+ n! M0 R& s8 W# |
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping% D2 W/ V' q: M% M- u5 m
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal/ F @; n4 C" [+ \& ?
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
7 N8 e& Q' U" J3 O9 ^0 s Nand could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
f3 C6 a8 S @7 {4 R4 B, U0 Vto cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news- _: \$ c8 r1 I8 g8 ]) a
reporting.
4 ?! M- A- c5 W+ r9 _2 R" G I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
4 V ]- s, f. falready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by+ |5 Z4 Z* a$ d5 f0 B
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in+ C" x, {& Q c+ L: X
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A+ H$ ^7 V% e( t% _; C
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
! U# ?1 C1 {, {+ A( M The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem% @1 S o, z- T! V
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
G7 r$ [- p& ^7 G8 r9 i N7 \faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
$ m" i. Z' U; ~4 W$ Rmeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same! k" ` `5 z4 z% k
event for men, with the second fastest record.
, q& O, S, l) V- r$ v The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
/ Z; h. @& ?7 Vwas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
6 w" X+ | d; a U2 xyear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record6 j) p2 q7 ^' R5 D7 e3 x
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
& Q8 n+ X6 M& V( r2 ~meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,, w& A. ^$ I. l0 U+ J# H
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
* K- o$ i) G: F) i* j3 kLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed; j9 o3 X- g4 H, p0 r
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
+ d( c5 ?8 w) z/ {individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
! D7 h# P' R8 g. C w$ n& Pthan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than3 |+ e2 I- \1 K5 S; B) E
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was, U5 B! t) m* e, k$ X6 @( U
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
6 Y- r, h& d! j) A1 L/ Z3 ]he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “8 k8 _1 N- E4 R" P* I/ ^
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
, V P7 r: c' D0 mswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
r; [4 O) Y2 e+ r# Q: Q0 [) gteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the3 u4 k/ v4 Z0 T) G3 W) e( k' H
Callaway report.& }; w: e. F/ j' k
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more; A$ D h8 E8 P6 z* w
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details9 U L" `: a' f8 C g
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
/ L1 p$ k0 I( D% ?8 j; N7 F( dof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
! _( B, n8 M: s5 O* r3 k/ u+ D* d; `better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the! m( P4 b) }9 [1 B: m7 _: r
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
3 e8 ]( H. e: e# V+ [( rpublicly voiced different opinions.. ?* @0 i8 M$ R1 y/ f1 M) M
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD0 H1 C* [2 B. z1 e
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature( z) a u) p/ ^/ }, M
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
7 @/ ?* f7 \0 ?3 {5 ~4 {postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds7 |1 h' V% T8 l4 [
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy+ \$ Y; w) K* q
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
" s7 g- T6 |1 L0 n' x+ fThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
% ]2 s# t, b$ g, S6 Hthat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
! ^, A+ \% r4 shave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
6 i, D7 Y1 z, J! `Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
* Y6 ^/ x$ l% U) k6 X, O" qthe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was* l1 @7 k, S, `7 J3 c9 |
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.
, y) D) {+ Q" ?! kOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that9 v: A# J3 w& L7 j
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the2 }$ c/ q* X$ o: X h
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June }) ?1 Q* @9 w$ O& u9 J/ O
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
7 R s; j: N9 ~2 \and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
- O6 [! v0 P$ I. {The British have a good international image, partly because of your science
; q# [6 y/ j4 V: a' fand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and' z' _: m3 {6 w8 N! ]& f9 s
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
+ G& M- K# r {- s' |Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and& ~! Q) `1 p. _4 q: D$ W& c
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
. h3 A8 D% X6 [( L1 Wwhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to& ^) J: k3 g0 e9 `) r
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.
+ D: H5 ]; B# i, `7 q' N1 W, Q# @The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not+ A+ D7 J* Y& B6 h# w, v
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced" V) C2 |" {2 K: e1 l- A
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
% f% l3 Y8 A0 k. yfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
7 h) @4 A G P9 D" a! _this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
4 H" y3 o+ G8 J/ q) }9 R3 xabout British supremacy.
9 p/ n6 S3 u6 w# I( _The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
9 `$ p( O8 a) h& A; v. R* `- ~unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
8 T% l" N. T2 X) c5 hChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by3 U3 Z+ E: b. U! C ~" S+ `" V. r
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London4 B( t% M6 _! y3 L r
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.5 J! G0 D8 x3 ^9 J7 d3 F* z
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of& h V2 J2 z/ y
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests$ H# V7 i0 L8 V0 |! p3 J, b1 J
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,8 j% Z4 u3 |5 R
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
* S" b3 \/ u: ^publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
) b% w2 K2 d( `Nature.
$ S8 w8 x+ p, J4 M' EI hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
; [3 u+ L" W, m0 D- L9 ~5 R9 rthe Callaway report.5 u8 w2 l4 ~4 ?! [: V, I
" l: F- T0 l' k2 ~ {5 h- [- `Yi
" E5 l3 F1 k% T# s2 d/ y" c7 h7 e+ c v
Yi Rao, Ph.D./ k- ]* z! }6 e# D
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
' b* h4 _3 X+ [ cBeijing, China8 r' V+ O g2 Q
|
|