 鲜花( 5)  鸡蛋( 6)
|
本帖最后由 bigsnail 于 2012-8-4 10:50 编辑 . C* t$ U1 o$ |# G
1 F2 F$ @ N3 r; v9 e% g. E饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。 h; G1 q4 q! `5 U) L3 w: S
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。9 u. S: O* J \* l8 d1 Y
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。' T9 d: d6 H* ?) Z9 B6 ^3 J, k
! u, _5 J. O8 H( d4 H1 W4 shttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html' p4 J& f' K/ [. c! d* N- @# x
7 x5 U: c$ k, V; I" o# t
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道 精选8 B" w6 w/ q' i
- X0 u! g3 W {) N7 v7 L英文原信附后,大意如下:/ a, h" U! m4 A) ^2 T
) W" j8 V$ T% l- O: |斐尔,2 z$ o; N# E2 Q0 R5 {/ ^; g( t4 ?
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( w. X0 X9 L& K, n4 X9 M
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。; |" h* m# ?! ^8 ?7 o
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/ E" s! N% S2 r( W* Z
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
4 o& U. X1 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。) \4 w4 a, v. c7 }1 S; ^! 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
, i8 s4 U# }8 u/ V1 A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
$ D4 G! ?5 k 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% `& B9 ]4 c, t: z% X/ P! F3 T" 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。
* R+ K) D. G2 e" ]3 x 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
% e+ B3 P0 t) K3 C" a: V% u8 N, }9 m,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
% s, @, E, k+ I7 ]8 {$ T; y”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。0 i; J" p; H9 F3 S+ P) J8 [- A
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' b6 n& A# X5 c2 j; g0 H
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
! a4 }7 ]/ D$ c& E' O. Y,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。' T$ H8 g: \+ q0 H& W, S8 s
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/ _& a9 j, c3 J$ T3 [4 p }5 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
' r2 {9 f8 n" m9 z. g7 {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) i4 I5 c- u* L T3 v d6 p, 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$ n5 t. M0 q2 b; e6 W- i
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 z" m' o$ K& x2 ]7 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
* Y/ e! n; q8 ~: |% o B9 ~& F% U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. K4 i$ E: M+ O ^5 b! l
。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
; Y8 p( s9 X" f. E# W0 ~录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
0 {9 p g4 }% w6 Z$ e9 H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2 L0 a" N3 Q/ z! F5 ]
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
% z5 K- Y' ^2 P7 ?5 R* r* `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
( r! c' J9 G# e. d同意见的专家。3 \0 k* @5 c9 T/ [5 O8 v+ R) X. g
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 V' |1 G, I8 h
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 w& w% c7 Q. U4 n7 I& S+ y
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
& k$ K: S$ F$ N6 R《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
" O, }' G3 P# F U; z" {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)9 f0 b. z4 H; S8 l* P' M
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6 B5 E7 E8 p4 o
《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
8 E2 W' X- U5 {" h这些被Callaway忽略。
' |6 j& Q8 L5 j2 ?- z0 \+ k, T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' ^, B$ P1 K' g" h* 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: x4 ~+ v3 u4 z& w% c
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。; J3 m: X7 t# i- g' g% ~6 j; s
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. F; N- w" i' }8 @2 _
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
4 y1 }1 T% N' ?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
3 K# T2 i, y$ w" q$ 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。! U4 `9 E& O! g9 c; h' l* A9 Y, F
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3 x i! N' h+ s) g4 X% ]* M
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
" s) Y' M, T) s3 F" b3 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+ e1 n; k3 C& K! d- f [, m
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。) P w/ x: z, T# K
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
; ]. f4 n8 T6 ?: I4 M8 V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
+ B8 W- M+ K( ^( i# X5 Q- s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* t( r) S. t- m: H) {" Z( F M
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! N8 D% o x9 ]. W
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- Z0 V7 `# b6 o
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
& \4 R: i# U& j: X* Z# p) p: q6 l! S# b我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。3 l8 B c' D3 R# X# Y' L
7 u3 T; c3 V1 } |' B6 F毅+ c2 Q' K# C9 O, K& `
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅) s; k+ g* G$ k& R/ s8 i" h- ^, i
% K9 V( {6 D6 t1 E' l
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结- Y# F5 m" _4 C# S7 W; @
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
! h5 ~( ]- @, x2 s, s, S附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
. h/ y% @, {5 L1 l8 w' l附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
& z% Z" ~% N7 [" ]; q5 g$ A) [8 _9 P% J& `* M% \
) a% h4 E0 C* t. O M1 l, I) Z
. p7 n: ^6 `; U% Y; l! q9 j4 N1 i
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
# y) O5 n+ H0 R. BDear Phil," `0 D0 i- P* `! L
You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s& o% w' }: e0 ]/ j) v
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20( }- [- k. N) l
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
! Q9 v. X" ^+ U4 syou.
6 p5 W! X! t# k4 Y4 w. W If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
8 T3 n* \5 a Hbrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese* S( h5 F7 H; j' q$ j ]
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
v9 q1 ?6 B/ [0 {world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
8 a0 g7 Y# P$ }& i# i4 l1 Kpublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
" v& D2 E6 m" u5 Fseriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news8 {% w! i" Z5 I V
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.& D! E% J' n& o5 k, O i% b' C
The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the8 E9 S2 l, | ~
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a3 s6 U; y) Z/ k
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
: @' U9 g* P' O. J3 G5 `/ c, @6 x, ethat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway1 a2 _6 |! u4 k/ n v
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping- k6 G7 q2 `* ?& e$ \6 p6 A
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
+ g9 o. k! f, Ostandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
0 N6 D0 d7 T2 n: d% S( x8 iand could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
8 H$ t5 v* D# `( Q$ c: Tto cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news# S+ g2 v6 t1 @
reporting.
* Q$ x$ g3 k) t' z/ s3 U9 F* ^ I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have1 j& U; d' Z9 C
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
! v1 c7 d( H# i- C# Hchanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
, g# K5 Q/ Z+ Q7 ?, i! gsports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
$ d1 Z5 {# m! j% }presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
" ?- G+ F9 R# V+ z) U The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem7 C5 f% r9 T6 V, g/ M/ u, v
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds" i' }7 W: @* |$ P) G: p
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
( n' X2 G8 |. a5 {meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same9 M- F, U6 G0 J- V
event for men, with the second fastest record.
: A$ s m3 A0 S& ~ The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
+ C6 k- n9 E& M+ p, s1 Lwas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
- h3 y: d8 M# X, F4 {/ m6 Ayear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record' X& c; r- x3 O2 ?4 v8 G
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 4009 W7 M2 f* J. h, @# ?
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
0 S1 e# @. D: n# M5 \, _% _+ J; e" Gfor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
1 }( Y2 V$ F, VLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed1 n+ V; y% D4 F' ~4 w8 h t( \
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the2 ?: G3 W; m! p8 l) C8 F
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower9 j+ Q9 ~- K! ~* A9 W, H
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than* `8 o! S* z! } M/ j* P5 t
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was, ^2 \7 d" a) k" \ [0 ^ {
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
' T4 D/ _8 P! ihe would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
& T! |8 @+ K' s6 j6 G9 Q2 jproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
3 J8 b C- ^5 m( |+ D$ lswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
# K! U( X7 _2 Q; v8 O g7 K4 Nteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the) E4 t0 y: C! Y! o v# S0 ?
Callaway report." K4 [1 P. X* l* u+ }
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
& ?( ^9 F5 b3 B) c) g4 U6 H" xunderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details+ q* v) ^# e: P0 X8 \
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description5 G& I1 G5 A$ B2 z
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been6 x5 j9 z1 C6 J+ U Y: @
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the5 a+ k1 I# Z- |: X
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
% w! F0 t, F8 Q. u( V! \publicly voiced different opinions.
$ K U- o' J; y) ?; ^6 IYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD2 B1 o) P( O* N( @0 n
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature' o+ { J" k/ C
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
/ P Z* X0 i4 }6 \* H/ Ipostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds. B# W' \4 B3 Y
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
K3 E. D" @5 j7 @; K/ pof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
' G* F c Z, Z- \* A MThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
2 W7 H# S M) c1 |3 a1 W* \that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
: ^) f4 w; V' thave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
8 u: I) m. h0 B" [0 A: lAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that1 `# t% h3 t, s1 T5 L
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
, v4 Y, q, e( Z, Xsupported by facts neglected by Callaway.
" Q3 M8 o \, E6 v3 AOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
. L+ D2 v, I8 J0 mmany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the1 W0 |2 ]& i2 o2 B r
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
S& s0 P1 q' @" s1 K(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
1 k; e: }( Y# |# pand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
( I% q0 @5 U1 ^7 k' ^2 ^The British have a good international image, partly because of your science
2 R' m! f9 a8 Y- t0 Xand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
8 R. B" t) D2 Z bDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.3 [! e) s/ s3 R3 d# G8 k, P
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and3 U1 v2 q! D5 m6 ~/ ?6 \+ f
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature6 \9 @, D9 y4 b+ Z5 R1 M& K
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to! c& l5 v% U/ ~8 E
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.
, z* O5 P8 H7 s% J6 w! L! x$ zThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
# F. @' T3 k( l0 u0 T. M$ ]% Sshow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
6 z2 s9 Y8 l/ r$ ?/ p( \" gus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather4 q1 c* O. a9 a! N& ]
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that( z: F6 c8 M+ {+ G, v. a" f, N
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
O. f' k% Y1 V+ nabout British supremacy.
# a" F2 x m! _0 aThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
0 S* O' P0 F A2 S% }unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more6 j) }/ S: U: G6 ]# b* U2 l1 ^
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
1 e* v5 s* |, |our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
6 r4 T, j+ s/ m1 }$ ~* `Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.% O8 N9 T. a: Y: b
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of: z% ]) j" [; V1 h C- o: ^$ |
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests. k4 Q4 P0 ?+ y) ^2 e& d- W
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,9 W) O& B R" k( u1 ~( u
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
9 _* o9 U' h3 hpublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
" V4 T* \+ f, v; t6 d* Z/ eNature.
* U ?1 v. ~+ `3 B4 J0 V) [I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
1 b/ b/ O$ L8 R( v) i3 o2 S/ Ithe Callaway report.
+ I D( A. s( i( ^2 V) q8 ]9 d; C6 D' s# u+ s# v7 f
Yi
% J" H8 a3 D2 b% {& W5 E. z1 U' z0 _) S
Yi Rao, Ph.D.$ g; t. w/ z l% e# `4 {. ~
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences# Q- o$ X2 d9 X- D
Beijing, China
|1 A; C: R3 ~( n |
|