 鲜花( 5)  鸡蛋( 6)
|
本帖最后由 bigsnail 于 2012-8-4 10:50 编辑
$ X$ q% g2 w* ~3 Y7 |" _
' o/ T/ h |& Y0 T' x饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
; D, U4 a0 h9 @, I, T9 @# E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。
% b1 i1 ]: F& d6 P2 ^& _1 [总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
+ a6 x: n1 m% b+ P
% R6 f% E6 [) H0 ~' dhttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html3 D3 [ x( i% }4 v& E
/ N; W: ]) w, W5 U/ i. z致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道 精选
7 V0 z. @# U' {# q# T3 ]- J/ L, [0 b) j* H- J1 H1 {
英文原信附后,大意如下:2 t* U" l: F) t# \' P, U1 w
7 }' ?3 t3 C5 U( p1 r: k# S! q斐尔,
: G) O0 L5 q# f7 h 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
' ]% N8 _# ]& a9 pemail的人里面小部分也给我来信。
7 E6 h7 g- O# _4 w3 j8 I* t6 l% j7 n' S 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
5 k" V8 P) n7 c( A4 @8 _0 _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 {1 ~ A: b: E7 t+ J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。
1 ^$ P7 j$ ?4 o9 e, X1 N! e5 t 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
( X+ h: u! a* t5 P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" z5 z0 B! K4 w; V3 V2 e: m% B
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
6 q5 Y& ~3 g- j( w; |' u' C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。
- }" V7 D& j+ M& d7 M 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
, \, @ {, n3 F7 A! h7 b,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
" {1 J4 j' C- ~; N”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
+ F1 P- Q5 ~2 d& v S 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
2 ^" B1 {, a- k# M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
+ y# ~. T; V ?0 \9 l: ^) d,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。0 U" U0 E8 a7 m0 q7 o
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 T, b* o+ S8 a# I% W1 `+ h% j
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8 b* v# W5 ?' m& P
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* A% a& e( c! e+ ~# r
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; T, `" B5 G7 g; n* [ X
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
; ^% [4 F1 r" G. C. R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
2 A7 d$ }( m) Y' _1 }- [ }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
0 A6 D8 W: g7 A3 {" x) p。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
% _: h; X* q; `. ~( W' T录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
4 a/ H" e0 l8 a5 p+ M; E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+ \4 b% w( H; ?
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4 v" X" t$ _7 }# P4 K
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- _2 d6 X v; |; B
同意见的专家。
0 L! `/ m% S J7 q6 A: 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
8 R8 V! R+ q) G& c! n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2 {/ c/ Q/ f+ y( s+ {0 O( N
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" `. i+ ?4 b+ a( t5 a: n6 j
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
1 {6 k6 C# B- u! C& E: NCallaway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)" |/ Z! }. ?( b& b) l& L2 n& w# r
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
! b: m1 e; l7 x2 V2 [3 t: ^《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
3 k/ W2 s) k5 a这些被Callaway忽略。
/ U+ c8 v3 R F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
7 Q2 S1 {0 K( b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
$ r$ e" [2 Y2 F' c教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。4 i3 G' n7 {$ ~! u
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
0 s8 f7 p% e1 d1 d# ^: r ?' K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
! ?* h; j& S) P* J6 w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; I0 N% r1 c% ^; W2 L! S
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。) c% r" _. O0 l0 ~
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* F @$ W& S( z0 }
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
, G2 m/ ]4 X+ {# r% Z3 }+ 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
N G& A, n. Q+ [" E6 K1 h- C”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
8 X' v4 o9 U* I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
E4 e, g5 _) b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
+ J- Y, m7 N) U3 a) t: `1 t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. C" q$ ~2 ]1 @; 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
; E6 A+ \5 W- e( ~# U: n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
# `' N* z$ ~7 h2 f而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。' Q) t0 R0 F# k0 W" q
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。' h9 \0 C0 h p. R9 {5 G& V* v$ j
. ~. Q) ]: B, U' p; {+ n6 d( y
毅
' K+ ^6 B* b' q; E5 P2 C北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
l5 n3 h" W5 ?0 k
% }5 z' k9 D/ j+ d# {附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结" Y- O! K! G( `" ^
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
9 n3 o( Q# @5 m; S8 w9 ?0 T6 i附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见* s4 z( f2 d# N9 w6 K, Y5 H
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
: Z2 e9 O ~5 j* @8 V! Q# V+ ^ D* y' }3 Q1 p
/ U9 a! w8 i9 K9 H# R, \; d0 I2 C7 D2 [0 s4 T
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
9 Y( z, I( t! _$ o: b- a/ \; ADear Phil,* u7 s5 a: Q- D! H+ n" D ^( Z; H; j7 p
You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s6 j9 r# M- R/ J! i
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
. G2 S9 b7 f' L0 |( w2 `' yhours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed( e* m' t: _3 B- B
you.
$ N6 y, l" k" \ If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have8 `$ n {2 t( N5 t# B/ U4 {' X
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
2 G6 R* }& j$ M6 Y; X$ h/ oreaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the2 L3 [8 c0 I: N+ V' n; A: f' j
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature' R) I1 T5 x3 P- y* T1 ?6 E
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
1 W, G6 { A6 y* S2 n( ]6 y3 d) ]seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news9 }# m# {/ y: |6 Z( `' x$ c
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
{1 E$ `, X9 L1 h4 W The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
* |) \9 c0 I, f8 n/ O! h% aworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a. H* V( R4 c$ K A \
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish: }/ }4 B* {8 n9 d
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
! Q% v% I% N" }5 Edid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping4 }+ q- W/ s) x9 J$ H0 E+ S1 R
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
* G, Z9 `' J, I3 E/ Ystandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,3 H3 I* f, U6 l6 P
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
' I: g5 k8 r: y: Vto cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
7 a" |9 o" z2 R7 ]5 W, q& areporting.
, J1 g2 y0 `! h7 b1 D I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have* O& C6 z0 u! R+ b5 i6 e$ S
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
8 Y" W, Y" j/ U0 t) |- A3 schanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in. r8 N, S& a0 y- V/ b
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A( j8 J: p1 c7 X5 Z, w
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
; }- _3 ?5 ]7 p4 s The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
5 N8 k: M! ^% x/ Q8 S2 Tmore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
) E/ y# |0 u4 m2 T0 x+ b7 @1 `! D6 qfaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50! e8 y# b. Q/ f ]6 t. v5 E! D7 S( m s
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same$ z4 \+ b# p3 o* g3 c+ G
event for men, with the second fastest record.4 E$ W6 n- n/ j, Q9 M" ]$ r$ P
The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye# s% h1 H( P( j6 u
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
; |3 l6 Q$ }" q, Gyear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
& U. D: z8 o2 x& P5 f/ h. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400/ E' p0 d6 r+ X9 b
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
1 ]" u9 z* y1 Gfor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than* ]/ v( U5 W1 ~0 R/ z8 v6 g0 I1 N
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed. ?, G# b0 Y+ Q4 a+ ~* Y& a% A$ `9 Y3 A
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the0 }" D7 m; L; j" R' [, f. B
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower& U8 o7 H1 Q$ s8 J! B+ q J! p
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
b* [1 T+ p, F( _9 U jthose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
" \9 _- l4 K/ b. X5 x! Oher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
4 P: I) n) ~. ~" V' U* s" Nhe would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “0 \5 j% m0 K; S8 O- l
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other& Y/ i8 e O/ Y
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
# F a4 G+ l- |1 Uteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
& B1 _- w/ o) T) C2 o% PCallaway report.
: G% f: \- i4 G9 R6 fThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more( o. B E% r6 M$ k
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details, v# m4 F$ E5 {( h; q% a- Y" x
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
' A5 b7 M! g! K s; Iof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
- V6 _1 A% s% c8 `1 E# }better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the8 ?( R, V I0 `, F/ ]9 R
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had; i1 w; p2 f& s4 A8 P0 M
publicly voiced different opinions.6 f) Q! s* [% D, }; z% y, i
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
% I6 V) K; i5 V- d( \; Q+ p9 Q( {from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
/ f6 K' j0 |& C, _5 L! O- S7 oNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
" ]9 B6 J( K5 u2 d: m8 K2 Rpostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
' n; C2 `: C) dyou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
9 q, I9 u. Y, m& a1 E: _+ Rof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.; K" v( t+ C; N5 Q3 C# w+ H
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
1 G$ d- e0 w5 _6 y5 q% z; x4 `2 wthat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They1 w) ~& t! {4 r2 B0 B& l
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
( N( F/ H, x* U$ @2 s" LAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that" G7 r, c0 N# O) p/ ~1 ]& y
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
5 q: p! d1 c" O7 A hsupported by facts neglected by Callaway.
6 j3 q" k" m9 W9 e' J0 y; XOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
6 a z2 p% d: ^: i3 a! O$ |many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
) G% T# A. Z: I1 eChinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
0 l- M* i% H- S- s6 t(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
, U8 ^# m8 l4 {3 t& jand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.* A" S) J9 k8 o: D7 h+ [$ ]
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science0 @, |$ C. w* c; \
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and' _+ N& d. f2 X; s4 v( o' n' @
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
. N8 p" u3 e _$ g; d. mNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
/ Y9 w5 _) [ F7 robjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature1 s8 X! ^$ E% x, p' a/ U* }
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
, ?6 u: T* F srepair the damage caused by your news reporters.
) X6 m' L: G. V1 \1 ZThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not0 I0 |1 }1 g% Q
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced P$ N& v0 C3 }- J3 }
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather B" \! V9 a- e# x
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that% u2 b' B' s! y9 A
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”: Q& e# y" d5 t* F0 X( a* \
about British supremacy.& p+ A% J, [6 g
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many% n+ u# b3 J$ |( b8 }! g
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
7 o+ t4 ]' v6 ?( k" N* GChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
' N4 j6 z6 u3 rour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London) d1 q) N0 y2 R. d$ I# B- ?5 h' Y
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.$ k6 M0 o8 F3 f' E/ E g2 X
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
3 r' \: |6 y+ O9 l3 vprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
4 {$ R1 n) b2 Q$ e: S mbefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,5 C1 P9 W! x. b# ~1 m5 l
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
, E, @$ y% p" L5 |0 x) |9 bpublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
% C" p3 b3 }5 pNature.& }( B! p) W! F; E; |1 i7 h; E( ?
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
0 | ?2 H7 y/ D! F9 cthe Callaway report.
2 X# v2 c% @& J# D" d. C: @0 r' [+ N5 m# [2 D) i) t" I$ I
Yi
+ ?! Y& q* C) ?7 `! p5 C
1 K+ G1 ^: n- l: i1 jYi Rao, Ph.D.
/ X5 Q$ C4 v* ~+ I2 ^3 }6 A- oProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences8 M' H6 z8 s$ S! L8 ?# B7 {
Beijing, China! B* \0 ~- q/ b; x" @% w m( r$ z. S
|
|