 鲜花( 5)  鸡蛋( 6)
|
本帖最后由 bigsnail 于 2012-8-4 10:50 编辑 / v* h' B5 e! l# W. k% H
7 s L) E, V! E& D {/ E9 m4 w饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
. x/ @5 ^" F; z7 N% W( C7 y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 ?5 f2 t- q# r- ]总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。" |3 j; \7 u3 D m: k
- U; T0 \* |* p7 c% P$ Chttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html4 I( L8 f6 ^4 u( ?% S$ l% f+ T* A
2 S& o& \, H7 f* E
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道 精选
3 R9 \, T- |" }; C; A, L- s; B6 s6 ^1 G3 C: S3 I
英文原信附后,大意如下:
* U* o* G' x9 w* }
# n3 \+ u0 Z0 M- Q* y斐尔,
' w& I1 T, `, P- a6 {: k 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
4 ^8 S9 K8 P8 H3 F6 |- \; Bemail的人里面小部分也给我来信。
/ l# y$ G! G5 y5 l3 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
5 i! j$ o* {1 J6 N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 a' x% P, U6 s1 F
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。) X% g" f1 {/ J X2 ?
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. ~# ]5 ~# d+ _" f
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* E6 k Z3 r6 l. I1 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: K. a" R7 Z2 u* n& C7 |6 E
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。
D; k3 M% }. x4 z+ r9 ]9 k 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% C5 a! o& [6 a" G
,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
0 K% o- U+ j, @; K7 x”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。: ?4 s: X' G4 i0 t8 ]/ F" G0 }* 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* ~) L/ k: {2 E+ V
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
9 P* ^: Z0 b3 U5 Z3 \4 |- M/ e,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
" q+ n3 x: D% O1 O5 q( X6 u; E' {6 j 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
6 p8 L( `" R5 S' C. z1 N2011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
7 H) {5 X. `# [9 Y1 U' U, N, ?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" H# O& v! `8 B5 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4 h$ y& n/ |; b8 h
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 S& P- B' V. ?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, g/ D4 a3 A) s w* [6 Q& R: R
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
4 @7 ]( P8 H- u# M6 y- V。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" K2 o/ ^; X, W8 ]% v' W/ B" _8 C
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。! j) {! S, g0 Q& h$ 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 {/ E0 p! t% F0 I2 M) ^: A6 E& M
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
$ [' o8 q+ H: x& I/ ]) KWikipedia。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! u; Y3 i7 g* c# L" R: F2 H& P
同意见的专家。' {, f8 K$ R, i; b- r
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 O( o: f9 j0 S
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 j: {5 T- Z& e- f, L# d
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' V, w5 G Q9 \) I
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
7 i1 P. C( ?9 N' r8 QCallaway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)
3 X2 ?0 `- W, m! X9 C7 _! 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% c8 e& Y, a7 Y3 S- i" w
《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
+ z! F, [$ ]+ x* Z- ]8 ~% A这些被Callaway忽略。9 w& m! U$ j7 G. o3 o: S
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' ^( m0 W+ s% K/ g% @2 Z3 N T
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7 k8 ?$ j/ v( D4 c/ g3 _4 s A
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。3 `& n$ U7 U. E% p, s/ G) 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6 \% B, N* a* x; w/ M
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
( k, G; U5 `, X6 _+ V8 Z7 \3 |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
. i, @; q# x" E/ l1 k" g1 D! L% P" o/ Y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。1 [# L+ |' [; j. `! B5 U0 B. Y
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8 X0 Y; A. Z; J5 W. k
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% G( G# H/ E1 W' \! @9 {: O8 v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
6 [8 d; o0 O1 h7 g”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
5 F* A, n' W8 u& X" N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
/ O' O/ e- k; K1 i2 C2 L1 `1 ^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" v6 B$ o# j- s- a3 o
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
# ]8 @# H I% O; [: [8 u" A# N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
$ N( b* F5 W1 |( g# L1 A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
% V8 |5 g9 [4 c- x- }而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。6 t, B$ v7 ~2 q9 Z ~
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。5 t3 P4 }# q8 P6 H3 R; J; l
0 K# E3 H( O6 n2 m1 Z. J
毅
& `& E+ l+ O6 E# M* k& p北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
: u* ]3 P* H. g) i7 t: T! D# f8 U* M4 O8 ?& z5 f. h, q
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结) i4 J. j. L. y- P) R
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
v* C( h- u7 V5 l+ Q- }附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
7 j5 b2 |6 G: e# p附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
$ \0 a! s C7 ~4 M! }! n* c/ A9 v* a) U' T* ` T7 Z
. f# I2 i7 V5 F, E! X
; t& M. |! B8 w1 V& L7 a原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)/ q+ @3 V/ E1 F' b! W& \
Dear Phil,7 [" I# U8 k4 n5 |* k
You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s2 k& y7 m: ~9 p% v
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
* D" h. ?& q; E8 O$ @/ d7 p9 @hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
2 e l& E2 m9 Z5 I4 K! Cyou.' S) {3 m5 b7 H% C7 a O
If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have+ Z9 @6 q3 T- n& _/ Z/ Z7 ^( O3 x! K2 ~
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
7 U/ X" \ m& X! hreaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
5 B8 Q/ a' k: ^$ o& zworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature. F: g$ i7 N1 ]' a9 x8 m' C1 U0 s. G
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
: g# ?+ A& W$ i4 H. V7 d. |seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news8 L3 t' {) j/ s1 f- W
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.$ L7 s- ~7 r1 t: ]4 G
The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the; ?0 _/ P6 @ A3 F; Y* [: M. y
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
' z! W# l& q$ p: U2 z6 [negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
! E- T) i9 j$ l8 k$ }that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
K6 y2 ?5 P) [/ }; a4 H, A: Fdid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping6 @" s4 @5 ~' c2 H# {1 [9 g0 w- u* @
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal, [; P% u+ m4 p$ L: o# p
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
6 m, Y3 e* N4 `) Y* J! Nand could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
6 I( h7 t2 I1 r eto cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news }' u. ?9 p# |% A8 C
reporting.5 A+ J# r$ p4 ^& i6 }
I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
0 @: L3 M" z8 n& B2 m% v* G. R3 Zalready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by: I; J+ T. n! w" K0 w! o9 `
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
5 _* z7 s* a+ i( P6 ^: z& Z( n0 |sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
0 j% R% ^" d% C$ \0 {presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.! C1 x& p- U+ q% R( F
The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
0 O% O9 z/ v" t9 Tmore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
8 S! H& O& H; `& V( k) T9 ~6 tfaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50, {( G8 B. n: Q4 g' ^) F' J
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
' r& O9 O6 Q- bevent for men, with the second fastest record.
) U! n) [9 ^) e; k- w) y3 ] The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye$ p; A/ n1 t, [0 Z
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
6 s9 I- D7 W, Myear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
, |! o% k( z& H/ O) z7 G5 [! z. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
/ y# d3 i" \/ v2 e- {8 nmeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
B! @1 a2 d6 F# e9 l4 @for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
R; `0 l& v$ d( xLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
, j* ]! A) ^7 g/ F* x! |7 w) B- Ebehind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
& O" ?5 Y o M2 T- C) l, Sindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower _% ^ L& N* E- }; l& g
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
1 f7 k e# K* z0 Wthose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was& j& \" H1 b: G& l# J: L* v) C# L
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then7 U! i! {: T( A# S$ a p
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
# e) a }$ D- L5 s9 M0 Kproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
3 k5 b0 Z" p1 I" {0 @swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
; M) z$ y. j) }: Oteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the7 b- L7 u! j" b( T+ r1 r" \4 B7 O
Callaway report.
2 y; a: H K4 Z8 S. @* Z/ P# j# zThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more H) I2 b) E/ M7 T. T0 Q
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
4 g* K4 [1 V/ p0 C3 shere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description8 y6 Z# U7 W- ~* F
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been E9 L: y0 }3 W- U# j
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the: T4 Q' `/ _, w
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
. _# e. E& L' G% wpublicly voiced different opinions.
$ o" r, j2 W/ P+ }2 K8 Y* H9 @6 q$ GYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
4 j: ]8 x- C( B4 Zfrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
) ~, ?7 {& Z% ~2 M/ X. ]Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent7 U; u. ^7 x7 m- j
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
4 ]' o5 @1 p- N$ m* Wyou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy. r0 X* }9 X" |1 ?! s
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.( c" |: P3 @* t; ^, `7 f. T7 J
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
+ I9 A Z8 ?8 D( n; l K) Xthat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They4 r( s% \1 P" z$ t& u+ V
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as& V) ?. _1 }, B0 k6 o! I: [
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
0 i0 {- n+ g$ \2 ~/ othe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was6 H% p) e) x! @ _8 l
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.
- U3 Q. u- \5 k/ C) R& }One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
) s' {3 ?0 a9 d1 e( Kmany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
. N) y% A8 k( `' s- q M8 s9 EChinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
' @7 z* p9 q0 ~3 k% X(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she, ^/ E7 X% M2 V6 C X8 T
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.0 A! k! r7 J& b% @
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science
! Q* V$ z, E9 K+ vand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and# ]2 e; R7 U1 w3 h
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
. P2 F3 Z: K! ^1 m# H* S1 ^8 xNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and( y$ ^, {, [. l9 \4 u% {
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
6 k' ?7 S, d6 ~& Xwhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
* x) |) u3 C: `- S6 [7 a& U7 N/ drepair the damage caused by your news reporters.
* H/ h$ ^% S& c/ rThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
4 L) c5 S5 B/ \# |show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
, ^, g& W: \8 Y* r" r% F5 }, D, Yus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
- o0 A4 _+ r: {- O7 ~( Hfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
$ U# h; J" [ \$ P& Zthis report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”0 F5 d. E" b8 o9 R+ j5 Y
about British supremacy.
/ B7 s A1 H4 U9 g$ }% W3 vThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many; F2 O, E- K; r5 P
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more& ?4 e# H1 r2 \1 S' q0 j }9 ?& K3 X
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by- |) w2 b3 Z$ |, P( M1 M
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London/ a6 X, u. j5 S0 q; N0 U7 M: \ H# x
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.' K n7 S( p" B
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of$ }4 m+ h% a7 i4 C+ l
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
" Z/ @1 L1 O- e# D" s( x0 gbefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
) q5 X4 \6 s) g1 Dit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly+ ?. J9 E* D& |5 w B0 h. r/ V
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like8 ^7 y9 c$ j3 Q. |" L3 P4 K
Nature.
& U- y9 \2 E" c7 {6 |I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
; Z2 O' F o6 w: G, ]& w+ v4 ythe Callaway report.7 d2 I! X( ]) K+ v/ A0 A0 ~
2 t- B1 B V% p) i: z$ H
Yi
( x2 h1 n$ C) E" N( s/ {6 p% a* p. w! ~
Yi Rao, Ph.D.
2 F. T( V% G6 K; h4 aProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences4 ~2 ?/ P* m$ F4 e: [; ~% H5 z: U
Beijing, China$ t. F& ]+ G! c! o4 U8 _- u8 S
|
|