 鲜花( 5)  鸡蛋( 6)
|
本帖最后由 bigsnail 于 2012-8-4 10:50 编辑 4 C" I" t" F, o- i
" `0 ?8 }2 \, v/ X/ Y饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
/ V8 o: U' n# X; s! K5 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。
4 Y. U' N7 _1 \- N4 G5 J8 O( `0 N总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
" y, |3 u0 ]% X4 b7 F4 O/ ?1 n& Q
: ~' t. y8 H# r% M1 _http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
: R! P ]/ I( k1 d
) G8 O' R. ^- u; D+ O$ d& Q! L致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道 精选
) {0 W- N. e" ] d( {! m; R
7 R5 g) s& e Q6 W6 c5 S2 }2 u英文原信附后,大意如下:
& I' ~- G; L: M) b3 Z6 e8 ~5 O; h( X8 ?5 L
斐尔,) G E, d8 i; H/ v, Z
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
# H$ o c. P) I \4 Gemail的人里面小部分也给我来信。
, L" D! f$ m' A f* S! u+ ~: K A 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! U" G+ q1 y; J
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
1 D( I+ l: j6 _2 v2 Z6 O- t3 t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 D$ [4 K" F$ I3 N 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$ q2 {4 ^* f' B. K( m7 f' ]0 q" R
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! \4 Y! O/ ~' u' g3 Q3 [
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
. d- S3 g& K+ n$ 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。 o) C. G9 w7 x- s2 c) Z; g
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
4 c# z, U0 Z p! D! z1 H6 d, c2 @,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7 `. R$ v2 @& J- u2 Y
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
. a4 N9 w( R3 y8 X# p/ m 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9 g$ K! W2 l& w# N
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- I+ [/ W& e: P A0 X1 k$ q
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。- |9 n B6 V# A1 u6 P
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; m$ e. o7 K9 n! W
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) D9 X8 x3 O8 \2 b
合泳400米中最后自由泳一段比Lochte快,而非整个400米。Lochte在400米是世界第二4 q6 K5 P1 v, |, r4 @( S# ]) [
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
6 h% |5 u3 L* `. {3 ^' G300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
/ J9 a# J9 }& P+ F" a0 F% q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
: }; a5 a6 Z# C- G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7 w; n. M# s9 r# E N' 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) W% A1 Z8 a9 ~& b' s) I ?! ~+ g
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
6 B; g7 R& Y* O! X* g, m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3 h2 O! H% r2 i; q! t
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' e; ^8 b( K( x/ q W( j
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 I; z, j& |0 v4 h* M* h
同意见的专家。
( H2 }4 c# y% B- c, h/ o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
}+ |+ [+ _7 r3 y' W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 p/ r* `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0 v s9 P9 i |4 ]0 {; V& j3 A
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
! |" ?9 {" q* w/ a" B3 LCallaway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), m+ g# K+ L ]+ n) H+ S' P; R( [0 K6 }
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
# n7 W) N/ t; 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, l- Z2 E+ w) @1 B
这些被Callaway忽略。/ B" g+ b' T( T% p
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 Y5 v3 T- x o& k0 {, M6 r2 ~- r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) g+ G; D$ A- X; b$ n1 G9 i
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
* K1 R6 T3 X+ U# v, d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
7 ?. h+ ^4 p% I) }1 _ U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5 v# p. r; E2 H4 L }
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- D8 {$ d- |; d0 X6 S' s4 N; Z
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。
6 k& E5 c5 z* u& X: ]2 I0 Z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 L6 Z& I+ z4 V O w7 U f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) t- y. F) N) ~# T2 V' U9 t* p- 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
$ `0 p0 f5 z$ a6 T% x% c( x”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。, l" J. [( s, v* y! D9 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! r1 I# w$ W, Y+ y( v5 G5 r5 \
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
3 E2 m: s- u1 f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
7 L& }. W% T- }; o, S8 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6 o. T: [' Y; H# M2 h9 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! B3 E9 P3 u! a8 ]/ i7 E
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。0 f* Q; b- o' q D
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。' o' s6 n! F* N* k' c N+ |+ y }
, h- s* b9 T6 b+ a; ]
毅
8 a( w0 |! c8 n3 B6 w @北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
6 W" \ G8 \8 @3 E4 {( f3 R
) [ H( y: c; e+ k附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
3 U" \1 L* J4 i附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
4 i) t' c1 S E( f( N附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
* U, O' B) v! u3 X附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
$ h' M# y/ x. C% f' v: b# U% r& l @0 |0 y$ m* C& H( I
/ B8 w# I* ^; J4 C; d: J( b7 O4 X
! s3 g' u" P/ y4 w原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
; x( `2 v3 j% _$ P" P! a: M9 SDear Phil,: K8 o) q Y R
You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s+ g4 W. I& |# r" t7 W
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
' {7 e0 w/ G* N% L( y0 Nhours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
; F) S7 ^ {4 v: z% q% @2 X* Gyou.3 ~ o9 B6 f) z1 ~2 q/ s* N& h! T
If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have4 _+ l w2 J7 y! M9 K
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
; {+ f( i) h* Creaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the+ L0 }, B% y. {3 \* X( h) }: g
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
1 u) r) K, Q* H+ K. E- Gpublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more4 S* f( Y p% J
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news3 X5 i& q4 r+ i0 \5 \
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.: Y0 U( s6 [+ q M e( [' k
The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the$ O0 I6 C4 N) a% h
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
. q, ^7 x" h7 cnegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
8 ^- s3 E; `' D0 w5 j9 h6 b- w# F; qthat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
5 y6 V g8 S" o8 i; D, z* x2 ]8 bdid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
# d* d4 p+ A3 G4 T' G5 Kexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal$ h& q L9 n* ]4 T1 H- `- R
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
: E# ]7 X/ R0 v1 h3 dand could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone( m- {, `! G5 f$ H6 M# ]
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
/ [7 T& t0 }, Ureporting.8 N* U7 x S. u2 g4 I% D
I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
! L N) n% k. Ralready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
9 K- ^! X4 ^! N* a0 k6 g2 Ychanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in7 L, |& f# |& V( z" z) K! S6 [
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A7 g7 r0 R u9 P
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
5 w& l) q2 Y. Y" H The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
$ K) t7 W; M, b" v+ v I2 ymore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds; W7 l- O7 Z+ |) a
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50* b, N2 _& A, E# Q% B; {$ d, B4 N
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same3 _ U; y% M6 }' s, v# H5 `
event for men, with the second fastest record.
+ ]; a: r$ j7 U The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye- v, m- o7 S' l6 P
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16: o" f( c) a" E$ L0 Z( }
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
1 l4 w+ r; d( c: q. |/ o; W: A. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
3 L$ |( E1 @3 Z pmeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,( p3 O8 A/ K; f4 b7 }
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than) z( ~ D5 P9 s. W2 b7 K& Q& n$ y
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed( u- [2 W9 q# b( Y: Q5 }
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
2 t* [8 H9 E* d! o6 _individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
" }6 i+ G* t8 Cthan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
- T! R! D7 A" n* Q0 Fthose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
: x# Q. }/ O3 B0 n I* Zher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
$ E, j0 r& ]3 Qhe would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “4 l' o5 G3 L5 \0 {* a9 Y0 b
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
7 u* }9 ^5 `% f! d+ v7 Iswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the/ K( u& j7 f& R8 d4 @
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the1 D! X- o- h1 T/ E/ y, N
Callaway report.
, h; m$ _. [! zThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
3 r3 y7 i" F! {/ m5 C: R# Hunderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
3 k% A4 Y2 n6 L% A$ @ ^7 Rhere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
$ u; v1 S+ z0 G: F: Rof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been0 L- Y, `' a0 w2 T" D- H
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
, }) ^7 C( V2 y& R' q: ~5 M1 B: rWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had0 P& o. K" Y( U
publicly voiced different opinions.2 G* @) T2 q: i" q) T! o# R
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD$ K% \2 |% n9 ^6 Z9 T4 i' c* R
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
. x" p8 e+ K r, ~Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
3 k: \& d0 d t& @postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds5 a) F N6 s5 V9 P9 k, g
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
; J/ y6 g" U3 q* a+ T0 h. iof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
5 o8 ?; j) t- r. Z) z# q' m1 ]There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think- ^" n) E7 I0 R7 U e% d
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They! s9 Z" G! i0 s( a
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as1 @. _, E Q% Y) q/ Z
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that8 O0 h; ~/ T* _: m
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
! E. y ~+ p0 wsupported by facts neglected by Callaway.
% \3 E' R# q- OOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
% R3 [+ E) W9 K; I# y% m4 a: W' i# R' _many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
' }4 T6 A5 \* s7 u$ f8 O: FChinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
, y8 m4 t8 E# t- m, W) @/ Y(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she2 j+ S% ^0 |5 a$ Y$ [# B& L8 b
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.7 s, B1 b s# L8 S8 \
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science
& W6 u9 Y0 @! v- |/ ]8 o( Band your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and* O" {4 \) u6 W" s, ^, `/ h: t
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
) `( |6 y- ?' P7 RNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
5 |; p9 ~; v3 n3 I' Fobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
0 W0 M, i* K0 m, P) Awhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to3 M- o0 o* H% u" T
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.! q0 r! l( `; W4 x. N: U
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
: b1 B- n" d$ B* w! a" O% d* k& Rshow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced9 R, S" M1 J ]. F5 Z& @' I" S* G( D
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
' Y$ @+ K' M {1 Xfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
9 `7 L( o8 x0 ]% Lthis report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”) }* |% B1 w" |) I, O
about British supremacy.
0 v3 f5 k8 p. ^( K! t- U$ {% `# n5 TThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many# p9 y1 X+ [/ K
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
) T2 L7 B' @' jChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by. w# p: z, i; \" q* V/ D) ^
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
& [8 `* H2 G+ f) ~- ROlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.% `. {" o* n2 C" L7 v7 Z
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
+ o7 I. e* L0 S5 l8 Iprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests6 v% l% f' j) Z' j) R" ~
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,9 `' O, P) p! V" J! s5 L- r
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
5 }( L+ o+ M1 X. r) opublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like* _- O' U, I* W# i6 d. o
Nature.
& Z$ E& v, ?* J# CI hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
- a0 ^" M0 d2 J2 ?. Dthe Callaway report.
% H; X; c/ x# S& s$ }' }. N% l
" V- r$ ?* a3 ?+ ^# c5 J4 g+ @Yi
' S( A( o+ S' t5 g1 |/ _6 m9 |( d5 d" K( M
Yi Rao, Ph.D.
$ |2 o4 Q' i+ ~" C( eProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences' K# j x, C5 ~) n7 v9 X
Beijing, China3 S- y4 ~ ^$ r% n& E; p
|
|