 鲜花( 5)  鸡蛋( 6)
|
本帖最后由 bigsnail 于 2012-8-4 10:50 编辑
3 d% O* i- ?, }( `- s, D% J" B0 P% Y8 l! ^- r+ p- J* J
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
- `; ^$ g% F" y( ~5 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。
' g# Z2 D ~% K* o- d5 C3 N) U' i总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
" k$ O! Q, ~# Y" B& P0 i+ U! |; P' X1 n/ k& M! l0 i
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
! R( W3 ]; u5 o% ~
4 u+ t- C+ v5 } g& C4 j/ q致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道 精选 F, ]4 w& L1 q# A% @
( P( j* I C! H2 q. ^
英文原信附后,大意如下:
: x6 [3 s' o. I9 M8 ]5 P! q/ i& F7 p. h/ Z" y2 s* Z. l! i2 m# }- s
斐尔,1 v. G3 ]; n9 a. N, q# L3 ?
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" E: }9 v$ g: }8 S$ E
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。
; ^! B9 _3 G! K. Z, D* Q0 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% o( P8 }* z3 K& V
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/ W7 h2 n3 t) q( l0 a
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。) _, q1 f2 Z+ r( k& q2 j
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 b; k. D' T; ~! \1 r2 N
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
' ^1 O3 b2 U# a2 {$ g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 g! b N$ u5 e: c/ 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。6 a. X( K Y' h
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$ `% X/ K, W4 ~4 v1 v- y
,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, ?2 d+ w {8 \' U' K- k' M
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
: a! t0 U: S3 p! Z, _" I/ j 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
" x5 u0 R1 G1 F' R9 r N0 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
+ X; I/ z% {, r+ e* I4 l$ {8 P,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。* @ O( p, s1 C: F/ t7 U+ r
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
% P6 ?2 C7 u1 ^/ n) l2011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
) U- L. J- f+ N6 H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
) K& G, x- Z" n" A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3 P4 Q) h6 M( x- e
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( V( f+ P7 u* M u3 f
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% ]; r d: \( G: 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
+ O6 {( A3 @% P; V+ H( u$ F。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
3 i5 d3 k+ `# T/ u, g- v. j录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。- X& n8 e/ |( ^$ i& ]
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/ S/ ? T' \ m* Q. p
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
6 Q4 E6 I2 D d9 a; fWikipedia。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
Q5 z. @% } b; C# @9 W同意见的专家。
( N* ? w9 q9 R4 G/ j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 G4 a! \3 @$ s8 N; r
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8 X5 v8 ?" y: B, e) L
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
- h: p- R1 I2 o. z0 \% @- ~1 A《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。) i/ P8 D8 B0 b
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)
- Z( }, }. s+ l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
3 \; Y6 j& U3 H# m0 B《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 x2 Y) p- o! v$ Y; Z这些被Callaway忽略。
~$ b M6 J( ~: n, {. S4 n( I: 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
0 G* U0 O: A% Z9 z$ K6 I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- z. E0 g7 x' v+ A$ y2 d# l
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
m& a, G O, M1 J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
9 m, m7 m+ O7 d1 |: Z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
Q" V) S/ |& ? k1 a5 y. 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- l9 I2 I$ J- Z( E
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。
" }' s x/ y3 G2 M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 a' B5 O; V" g6 ^' n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' Z. C; S9 K9 e; B4 x' z4 U
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
& \+ `0 q+ _5 i$ Z& d4 k4 R”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
2 Z' x3 c$ [( P+ }) ~. W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6 U/ `4 f# k" {
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7 I( C6 K& H d: h% @
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) |: s( }$ ^5 y) X1 {
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
. v3 [' V c7 z) [0 K: q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
% U! k1 {0 y. g) c: }而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。+ J4 l' v" ?! K- y' I. {( K
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
, \0 Z e2 x7 _3 c, C: q
% q6 p9 g! B: r毅/ ^% c" P i# }) s: a7 y& E) q
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅1 v, @7 e" I( S2 M2 ]; _, [; Q
" N+ P. Z8 Z: b" U3 A附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结& }$ s" c$ r/ q5 X0 o
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email) Z% k) l J6 {) f
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见8 V0 j5 d+ B/ T- U/ F
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
6 ^! f' w+ |! t8 e1 Z+ H
3 H9 g- `/ T R, E! e6 M. c( d+ H% Y+ w( m% h$ o/ T* K1 u0 _
; U2 I+ ?$ c) U, k. F" ^) v
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
J) F/ }+ n! G8 f+ A# i0 J2 E: N4 k( PDear Phil,
4 {% ]4 t' n- C You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
9 f7 T) v) c2 W% Creport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
8 E! W* K3 z# C" N6 E& q& G2 l: Uhours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
$ c1 X0 A0 E* S! q* ~) _5 e5 Zyou.
( |# }4 G' P( n& M2 V; H If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have" B) f6 j, Y6 X. g
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
- A$ I) P8 ~- m+ j! \( o# preaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
) p; [6 q, O% ] `9 Qworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
- M) p7 i' n0 c) g) |! ~$ spublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
; K! T% D& w5 E- ^seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
8 R) c( h/ ]: q, M, ]pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.: f( \# X! E5 b6 C& J, l, V5 p6 `
The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
) t* [: G& _' q* U5 N! A$ ~worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
5 i5 f+ W/ V6 N- @negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
1 Z- v9 h2 G. R: xthat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway* B" q0 X x( G0 o/ O% X. _
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
1 K1 {, j, G% `1 M7 W) Uexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal' |2 z' d0 `5 g) l( v. j3 N
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,8 i& Z2 B' J# `4 W( J& E Z. P" Q0 d
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
: N. `0 F9 ?8 u+ m1 O1 K* xto cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news4 Q5 a& @# M% R
reporting.
" e% Q: N1 M# E I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have0 A( g2 Q% R/ J1 c. m
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by# Q1 R1 j2 C g; W; l8 j" s$ |
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
8 P) m0 s# ^* ?" X8 Isports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A: J! h- x8 X+ U% N i" C8 w
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.6 Z% c! B ]# H6 J0 m* }* `
The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
/ q$ x( Q9 Z% g& j; `: Amore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds' i% S" L: b6 ~) W6 w9 r) N& B
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
$ O0 d7 F' z" D9 l, ?meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same. Y2 F. r4 C& M
event for men, with the second fastest record.8 w- P- C- @2 i/ U# {; d
The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
H* z' N, `" L1 ?: Q$ Qwas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16* f! t& b0 ?5 {! r! e0 Y5 t
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
+ U7 y3 [( @( v4 q& I. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
0 n* W K S5 g) }meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
; `* X! ^; a2 bfor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than: J+ M' N, A8 F! `2 S
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed+ J6 ?# \7 y b0 m A! X4 a8 F5 |
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the: C; J* C( s. Y( T% r: I: K& @
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower7 K9 {; P6 I Q
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than% T* K7 w. t/ l9 d
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
- Q, X7 Y+ s- a- y- [+ O3 k) s: A& uher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
( {$ e6 \$ d) X8 Q' ?; ^- x8 `he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
" o7 @- Z. D5 }+ @problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
/ o7 K; ?8 Q& s& p5 |swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the" C/ D$ Y5 b5 U
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the( ~) `; _' b( x# n6 ~ V2 y
Callaway report., J# |' J* E3 t# }0 t- O3 }, @. E
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
/ @# g u4 y/ S5 j& |" Cunderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
2 n* b, d) O* ]+ Q! |5 |7 G8 Chere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description. x' y* L+ R' N' j0 g
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
& R7 r4 h/ q- L0 r5 N" ebetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
+ u6 e6 ~& {+ O/ z: iWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
4 v& `. G: K# |) ^) L7 k4 fpublicly voiced different opinions.0 x" `! b' u9 s( ~7 m0 F
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD8 _6 b4 D: f. r1 e3 v* s
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature4 [2 J8 m: f3 f" N* p6 q
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent. @3 ^" g0 |1 }
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
* i. f u0 z% q3 c% } G6 I. _you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
6 n% x. r8 p. y) S, vof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.0 n Q) b) k# v- g
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
. C6 Y( O: W5 k* w l0 z0 qthat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
- K( q; o& j* R8 C& ^1 `. B/ |* Phave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
, d7 w! R9 H# L, {: lAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that' g) O0 W7 a! m- V7 K
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was8 T8 g+ N/ o9 W z
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.
" ^2 N2 ?" i5 H E6 z+ _One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
) }8 N( {$ O, x1 s/ t2 lmany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the R0 {. b6 ?9 J& u3 v8 b
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
8 _) a, |$ d) W0 _8 R(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she3 |9 Y" a$ q. t/ q# y. T
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
/ f8 ?3 Y9 p6 d3 i! UThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science
" Z6 M; _5 ^6 ~* x+ |and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
, z" w2 b% D( B' p, b$ iDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
, Z! @3 b- X9 _" @- m% a rNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
) y2 _: p! Q! M9 [objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature. s7 n: @2 q, w: r! K
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
9 y; e) D9 N u4 b: H2 i+ wrepair the damage caused by your news reporters.
, ~0 I9 _) X3 F" PThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not' T1 O9 w9 _1 U2 @
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
_+ s0 F$ H5 f( U0 y# P) Lus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather8 H! |7 [% ~ t9 ?/ o! |1 R
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
6 i. ~& M4 w& V" }; _this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”+ w3 ^4 d2 x( K! F. M+ `' f
about British supremacy.
+ [7 y/ Z: X# B, e4 m2 GThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many7 ]. ]8 m7 p' _; ?: c _4 z% N
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
. [/ }# ?+ H) hChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by) h5 B, ?% \2 r. |. j# ]
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
. r, U5 q3 j: f7 v$ N2 ?/ m. }Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
* n# F6 E0 R! | I3 nYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
9 k! |3 T9 }% L4 E6 u1 S' Rprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests! f( r/ R3 D: e; y0 |
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,; Z' ?8 L8 ~7 ?! y4 J$ \
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly& m1 [0 a; F! g; i% o
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
Y* F& c% Q! w' GNature.( ~: b* z2 s# {
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
6 R: F6 \$ e5 V/ ythe Callaway report.- Z5 A0 C$ u% @0 O2 r2 w
& K" f& c0 _. l7 m& H
Yi
+ j( U6 L* H6 j; |% a, l
/ f( k4 t& V& E. F+ c* _Yi Rao, Ph.D.- X0 u* l0 j7 V" v; U
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
9 B+ c l6 P+ `' l% LBeijing, China$ P+ G" O- P* v- H d$ K" |# f: Y: I
|
|