 鲜花( 5)  鸡蛋( 6)
|
本帖最后由 bigsnail 于 2012-8-4 10:50 编辑 - Z+ ?9 \$ [2 z
; a& U0 x. P6 V8 p
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。) l& f/ V6 v7 L5 @
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。
# _# k; @4 k" K0 N/ J1 A总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。; `% l- q4 ?. D: `; v$ y( S
8 V' [1 { Y; W5 D8 f* a% m- o
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
0 p! J0 g7 Y! y3 Z4 {2 m( C' X* K5 ^. z
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道 精选
3 ]0 Z* @+ g( Q& w& I
% P* _5 _- z8 Y- i7 r# P英文原信附后,大意如下:
& w: l, i+ [: A/ i. s
0 w; p; U, X6 |' \斐尔,
# P0 w0 }' A: }! g; n 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; N9 s; e; r! N, y4 E0 u
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。5 T0 }3 o3 v. P" y# [
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- F6 b: C8 u: a/ Q, j& q
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; [( X' I+ r* m1 ^4 t2 a- e2 L
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 U) b' c/ b6 t/ E/ a
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3 U6 {+ j% d5 i9 E1 K8 L# w
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7 Q; D$ Q3 q3 H z% 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
: S: x, }4 Z' z4 ~- O6 y: R" @ j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。- r7 }7 _3 T" }/ n. c p" a
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) M4 i9 r2 t9 i/ I( O# r! T5 A
,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* u- Y( ?/ W6 z9 m6 n# L' v
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
- s/ i3 b5 w% P# E* B7 @0 U- Q 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 t: u' g: f4 N5 u8 t# {
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
- u0 I! `7 Z! C* g2 [( w: _,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。# \8 [) r, M; S& a2 h* X
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2 U/ p! n, {$ e5 F( S- u1 m
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
! f# O Z6 m, j2 B+ F% x5 v$ E3 \. O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
+ Z" v& u5 Z3 k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 b' `5 A7 d8 }$ l5 h+ h, 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、六3 X" k- N+ K- g A
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
: y9 W1 C# R H+ C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
2 v. Y# T( @7 P/ h3 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+ N6 ~3 z, U# `& P, @ l$ ^# K( E3 f
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
5 l- r' t$ k- U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) ^/ {+ O4 _! y. h; ^9 [
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
. ]! w" |- B0 l0 U5 i7 X9 V+ a" Q+ ]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
1 z8 ]. F$ k, `0 T5 a5 y同意见的专家。. o% j4 C& A7 X/ H
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4 A. p8 G: ]! j, T0 p/ m! j! 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
: F# ^/ J. P) e4 g; 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
/ ~* c4 H2 `) g/ Q; z. h《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。& ~( T* C9 [; D- |* q& O m
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)- B7 g0 r% E7 S; A6 I
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/ `- ?! n0 w; \! n* ^) U
《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/ u) k& F4 w, ]& A$ }$ n9 j! [8 W
这些被Callaway忽略。
3 |4 F1 Q4 B2 v5 a! u+ 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2 N4 }1 E3 w6 ~/ _5 m$ k- Z+ S
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
: f0 W: I* U% s! q" G教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。: N ]( w) r0 M( B* q( v0 P5 w; x
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8 \: y! Q4 ]8 E$ [; b2 T
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! g8 @" V( W, E. o
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
$ M" M. Q6 }+ C+ a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。
# i$ j" e F6 V( g r& e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( T1 ~$ a% c& i, v# S1 N3 y( @
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
/ y {1 y' G7 _+ y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7 n9 p, U: H- ] Q) `" W- p
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
& G" V7 a* R" G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 |9 n( d! V4 \8 B3 U1 P; x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
( i P6 m3 q: v/ x: ~' \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 ]) C6 ]# u8 \0 O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. d/ Y" i& L' x% @
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 c$ ^5 ~. B; z5 n! V4 v- @; m6 _3 l& O: g而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
# ^* F+ \8 {+ f4 O% Q我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
5 p( m, j$ G* Y0 H& ~$ ~ c% d$ y
0 d/ j4 W- B3 V. C毅
K/ D% H: U+ w# o; M北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
" o1 l. M' G* V% d) Y1 N* j$ r6 c, e; i- h% U& t
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结1 ~! f! F0 ^2 F' n9 F8 N
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
( t! ]" P+ i6 @9 r: N附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见6 p4 N7 Y' @; k+ L8 f
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
- [7 V( Y, g, ?) W9 i6 k
* J6 ~6 r: m7 P6 W( v# w+ m( g6 `7 T* j4 U+ O: S/ M4 H. n v0 m% k6 o3 T
* r3 k$ U1 ]. `% j I原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)6 ?- g: ^& R k# j7 x: c8 \ f
Dear Phil,
: l) \7 v. s% G& W1 \4 _% j You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s' R4 @$ E* R" Q9 G& _8 B
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20. y: V( D8 t; ?; ^& T: x. {
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
5 z& W) I3 t3 D) Iyou.
. \. Q1 S4 `3 e If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
. n5 e ]* N/ w2 H- T2 qbrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese3 J) k& s6 r- D* r1 o% R
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the* E E( x9 R, s$ r" q$ H
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature' r+ ]! ~5 x$ O! ?2 P/ q8 L
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
! W* p. S" D$ w; l! J# P" y3 oseriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
8 p: C: K: o. zpieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
5 h6 b$ d1 o) d! i1 B' U The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the: K2 q. K, M4 w! q
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a% n' I; F# n$ l, \
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish' D, H0 x" M1 c6 |' T. V1 T
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
3 C( a e- `' o' V1 ^, `did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
1 |+ ~3 z' J; w( a- w' Kexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal8 n* j& a; @) o! F! Y2 d% }
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,0 p2 m; q& J/ w
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
0 q, b2 q0 J9 k/ l! S. cto cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news/ ]9 |7 K" w* @. Z0 z2 \) {
reporting.
2 Z/ F$ V$ X* Y( H) O. a1 ]9 ~3 ] I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have2 C0 G& X0 d4 N$ z- s) a5 o9 |
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
6 E. V& G# J: Jchanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in4 E, t1 i |. L* `+ {$ v% F, I: h
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A) U p( C2 A) O) J x
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts." I. |: j: M" a- p# `
The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem+ B3 X1 x" m! I$ V0 y
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds& `# O% z3 L% T8 L7 L- U
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
+ O! W; G" g8 Kmeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same/ ]' M1 D/ m9 Q
event for men, with the second fastest record.
/ l& g: @1 d" }! D; { The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye- z% G2 b; G/ c" `% N1 Y/ S
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 166 P8 t9 @# J$ Q3 F4 y! g
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
- u7 q# x8 ^* p. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 4000 P. X0 [5 |( d5 B' @* j
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,+ G1 o$ o% D1 h$ @- \+ G- o
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
1 [7 v0 P9 d) n+ f- TLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed' g* R7 _& ^' w* J0 G# W4 Z3 ]8 {8 P
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
I& |0 [* `9 |4 T$ L6 j. m# |individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower F8 S" c! o, `* M4 W
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than" T5 Y7 N3 v7 \$ L* u) I% f6 k: H
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
_3 g, [- L* ^. Dher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
: m, z$ x# p" j' L a) c* b( |# Mhe would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “# ^+ ?& v, B' `$ t) i6 ?
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
& @: A0 m; O5 Q0 k7 `2 aswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the4 J: R4 Q2 ]' G I( `9 b
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the, b, K w8 c- x( {8 U: C
Callaway report.
. G* T; L+ @( ~ h" Q/ N) R4 DThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more3 o" m/ @( X& |* ]- n
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
8 W5 b' q$ Z0 j) p7 m( chere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
3 N( i3 U: T) B; h8 a- A1 Zof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
, E/ l9 M# O0 |9 Kbetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
7 L% D5 ?0 A2 T+ I7 x6 W" c; n% YWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
# z/ T9 D5 i0 m. C6 x8 kpublicly voiced different opinions.
: j; T! u! W# E. T- x0 ~% E$ |You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
3 z# O- w! x- l! J xfrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature. W7 f5 {3 R" b, @1 j R
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
4 I; L8 G5 C7 M$ `2 @postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
" i/ T( Z! s( uyou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy5 \8 ~- M& A, }7 u6 X$ C0 W
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
, M/ |0 w: S6 f0 a/ c" v m0 \5 WThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think' y* o" e! Z: G* j u" H
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
1 K9 Y# @( G3 h. d' shave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as- g9 T$ ?% H8 d0 ^ G5 Q
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that' b2 k7 R& t. L1 `' [4 j4 X6 H
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
# G2 P9 Q1 [1 m# d0 K2 t" S W Fsupported by facts neglected by Callaway.
* |- t6 B% O* H! U: GOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
' R, K, _9 p1 e# E8 h* e/ }many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the- Q$ |2 y! K& J6 b
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
; Q Z; v& w) A, t/ Z2 S' N' Q" ?(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
( d. F6 J% M( G Rand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
& |$ I1 b+ w/ g/ \4 r' cThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science
& O+ @, y/ h+ |2 O* m$ ?and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and( ^# e, I: n) R. T
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world." Y) N/ \# W+ T* N# U# q
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and8 w5 H. e- Q2 j0 ], |! }
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature3 h2 L; D) b3 }6 X7 O' \ |
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
! e6 s" F- ~# R, vrepair the damage caused by your news reporters./ R4 n/ L' P/ s7 O! _; y
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
/ K7 F( P" |! h* d* d& o' jshow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced( J* u! y2 M) M* L A
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
5 I9 z# ?# p' L& f- Lfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that4 V9 _' }; ?( ?; L
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
/ w! w2 s3 G# F0 j8 ~about British supremacy.
1 P6 M, V: Z9 q3 jThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
/ }* C9 l$ G- C+ Vunsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more9 \$ H. g% m7 {1 J
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by$ j5 n+ i: P# E$ U8 }- h
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London& p$ Y) s4 @+ O( n" z, j- u. X4 ~' f
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
2 I, A1 l. F8 M% NYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
: X' |" Q# P& b, Bprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
6 W4 S2 _5 V6 m; Y4 j$ O7 sbefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
2 Q- S6 c" U, y: ~" i% R) iit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
0 L2 F2 Y* v1 @& z- ~. kpublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like8 Z) O1 M; e. x* ^7 o8 t5 g
Nature.
4 i4 V: i9 E/ J2 |( aI hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
2 \* u, s4 s( I1 h4 W% j/ s+ Ithe Callaway report.
* A, y- V; r* K" v( C' h5 p G# g; {
Yi
5 k' s7 e1 p4 a" s! J
( R7 D+ e/ Y9 W0 h% yYi Rao, Ph.D.
) y5 d" D6 p9 Z! EProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
6 d! G' b4 s# _! D) wBeijing, China: S6 G3 o8 j, ?( t5 f
|
|