 鲜花( 5)  鸡蛋( 6)
|
本帖最后由 bigsnail 于 2012-8-4 10:50 编辑 9 t" c# Z+ f0 b, ]
4 T4 v& v4 n9 e- v2 q饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
6 }2 H4 l9 y+ J! b: ]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。
" Y( `/ m% l9 U2 f% [总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。0 m2 R- _* I- U: J
; z% I7 g6 I+ F A
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
7 d/ R; o% S: L8 Z8 ~& L! u, E5 D7 T# f
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道 精选
% E- o! j) S9 O, f1 C5 q6 G, y( f8 ?
% ~' `: B& Z9 X! d; A$ a3 { X! m1 [. h英文原信附后,大意如下:
, I( e4 y2 ] v+ ?
' t' Y9 Z1 o C( v* l斐尔,+ j. V0 Y! U& }
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
, G( e ], T" F% ^email的人里面小部分也给我来信。- \1 A8 P0 f3 s7 W
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. t2 U2 \6 U" T0 @* K- ]7 p
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
! [/ Q- V* {- R% G" z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。& T& @4 I/ d3 {/ o7 d
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
% k. i- N4 A' W0 y+ I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* L4 C% M/ u* D6 v8 w4 H$ W* R
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5 q* S5 x7 y' M
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。
% t4 v3 x% x8 ^& e( E7 Y 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 U7 b2 m, r5 z# L5 V$ D
,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" r% k# a/ l* V+ {
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
. L7 s' |& A* B" I) P- O 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
1 Q0 X7 P* v8 k! M4 T2 U6 J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! F% S, h+ `, Z+ I& @
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。. D+ A" k0 o' }: V* E# Z
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
+ }0 m; D" n4 Z. E' j2011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' ]' b8 c- m! M6 t; y! O9 ^9 i
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, I* a# a B! w& d- ~* I
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1 K4 D& y- f( t
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
) a- r" s0 i& _% ]/ c3 @# 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
1 F& F0 H2 A2 s6 a9 ?! P8 W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
% V9 t5 | _( F2 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% w2 N8 H) {4 C- Z( M
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。1 X# _6 t, ]4 |3 @
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! O9 G Q1 B
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
' i) x$ U% _ b* 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
9 B$ K, d2 F5 l0 H9 O同意见的专家。2 {/ N7 ~% [5 x' G& J$ Z: s
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
; g; L& p r$ H: ~# J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
$ Z3 r- g0 b& \6 C, ?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
" }: H0 V% ]: H《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
" R0 W- y, U' c* l- yCallaway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)
* z6 I' v& U. A4 G7 @8 D5 }4 v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. s8 J5 D1 r2 V+ r; h
《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2 M2 {9 S* H+ u( {# u
这些被Callaway忽略。. C8 Q* h2 T v: e8 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( t; U' s& K' h9 C
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$ ]" v3 C! `7 q0 n
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
6 O3 Q* E) @8 u# k8 M, C3 R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% @- {+ q' P7 M$ U! 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
' k7 h W- M! j% d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
6 z- X" {- v0 Y4 z# E% w" w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。
5 h/ }- J) p ?3 ^* @' [& @' F0 Y% c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 G6 L; V* }" ?- Y+ U" m: ]% x
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, g; J8 Z5 b( \! y8 [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# d& p; k: e: Z6 j& F1 [
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
, `; M5 I, t5 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4 {4 `4 t" |4 j- i: @ H5 C+ \
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
& a" j' Y$ A: G- v" a) m6 P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, k/ d5 N6 h8 h
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
$ Y/ I1 K- T- n7 [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
' j) T! U3 ^7 m% w而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。+ j6 B& U: `8 i8 a1 i
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
6 d- m9 z6 y( g7 U) h5 i: F( p/ t7 H( \" Z+ Y; P1 v) Y9 Z1 i
毅) |0 b& M# Z$ U( Q# v! @8 t$ v: O
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅) Y9 q# D: t" p: _; e# U
7 n, w V0 a- D; k; V3 e, ^附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结3 ]1 I. @& k1 \
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email0 X- J( C( [) u5 t; h
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
: \0 S- S; T5 G& j& l2 y附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见* v! E6 N0 \( f
7 _$ a1 e) H8 ?* D, ~; W2 g: `
, e% X8 G, s* v l4 v" t4 v
' T9 }+ m, G6 C( Q" }2 `7 ?0 f) j原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
% Y! W% H) K; }3 lDear Phil,
7 u+ Z4 q) S! s% C You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
8 C9 Y- o9 [% X* r* W* y+ j. treport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20, j# p+ e9 w; o8 h2 @! `4 r
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
$ a7 |6 k! u( I, c" ^4 d' @/ }. oyou.
: l, z% V8 ]# X3 f, ~# `/ E If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
" Q+ j9 N8 o7 o" O9 w9 Gbrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
9 S+ M4 C4 e5 z0 f' Treaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
1 |! }! P" P1 N$ I) B& [% _# }world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature, L: O7 d3 S; M3 @
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more) i% Q4 l$ n- q x
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news }$ ?% ^/ U" _, T$ f9 U6 [2 B
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
/ [& n1 ^5 Q! X The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the, C4 z7 @8 ?) q( R
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
% w% U! w8 q4 U% Y9 knegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish# s2 b; h- ?3 b6 V% W8 d3 f8 ?' e
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
2 B' Z4 p+ D h6 r! Z1 a5 ?did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping# K% M" R6 r6 I; l% l! f/ r
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
6 y4 m. w* T1 V% I$ p# wstandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,8 A+ H3 Q0 V2 `
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
6 b- w9 e1 {2 I$ N# l* {: nto cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
$ G5 T, m: Q: a. a. v; T7 @reporting.
1 ^2 }( e9 }( y( h* i( d I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
5 _1 x/ x/ ^5 m% d- s$ }already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
) u/ ]5 o s0 B$ S7 e; p. O( Mchanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
* Z, h9 ^% \# C" C0 q' Nsports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A; }* ^( b! l- B5 S
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
8 c; t( H1 P; u# m5 E& x1 d8 c- u The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem! s1 e8 g, X% Q; H5 o, _& C
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
! G8 L$ ]' z6 V; sfaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
s: |2 H. F$ k% ?! j- f) s, Wmeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
2 a( ^5 d, \/ H* j' t% G% |$ \; `event for men, with the second fastest record.
8 z& r& A# y: ?. v* u The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
$ `5 J3 M# x$ v! t+ E) kwas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
( U# y* R9 @% y3 {' _year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
( C+ w3 _; ~: t0 w$ t& F2 K. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400' l% L/ x0 F: i6 a: |, y
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,$ I: q8 a2 d5 D
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than9 q% K/ m( H% o7 T% c, H1 w
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
s$ X" V6 l; [7 N/ ubehind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
# |! j' j; s% jindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
+ ~ b- O, r( J# B( T0 ?than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than+ C) J7 G( _) O/ w" P
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
5 |- T v* M6 @3 m7 ?her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then$ g* u% }6 }6 c! ~( q
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
( p( g, u; D6 \# Iproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other2 n9 a: d5 ~. X% H- E
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
- |* F& Y$ `, z8 ateens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the( W2 G8 K/ J3 `. g1 ]# y: D
Callaway report.
% O9 O. m- n. k$ hThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more: L' d& C$ r j2 k# D5 X
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details: P% U+ @% y. V4 |
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
3 G; @9 R$ R1 S" n' q; S4 dof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been1 Y9 N9 E& U2 j! q$ w' `
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
0 E; l; h- w2 v0 p- @& _: OWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
& R4 U* S K/ E5 u Ipublicly voiced different opinions.4 o& w# G- {/ o9 m4 y
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD& o- l4 v* O* m" E7 z& |
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
% P1 V7 ]& Z; l' kNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
1 w; c' y, x3 w0 t2 R( o! a+ ipostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds! Q7 Y2 d; z, G* B
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
: `: L2 U5 L+ s& J8 y5 p+ lof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
% Z5 N; l# F3 U7 w1 c g9 MThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think$ f, k+ z7 b6 u
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
2 i/ @- L0 s' l7 m+ ahave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
: O J/ r' z$ u$ _( E4 A2 SAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that. }4 ]6 u8 I" ~ `: M" @
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was' U# M- M8 {: A" S* _
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.
" I, q Y; }" a" j- x) L- oOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
( h: {# G1 H( L0 B D. p# c/ i2 xmany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
! n+ A% C: F; q- ~Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
0 p8 ]$ \ T6 W9 L$ W$ g. ^(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
0 O' |. Z* W2 f4 ?and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.' C3 {* l2 S# Y0 ^( }2 f- n( R8 H
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science) I: H3 Y$ ]" \/ l7 t
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
6 F8 ]2 ?9 y i2 K& p7 EDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
8 K" \* ?" m0 |2 i) N: kNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
m. S P' J3 k$ Bobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature/ g# N; u& ^$ O8 n1 ?! X
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
5 [7 n( o6 r# T; ? Nrepair the damage caused by your news reporters.% R+ z: n3 O" z. b& L+ P
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not, ~' _; f s: f0 E
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
* N* e9 {& @: O( w% xus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
' e. T4 Z( [1 } f% Cfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that! c: W9 w/ E( G7 g$ ^
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
" X" V3 ?# v7 _7 Y# labout British supremacy./ i7 f, P7 L6 |
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
. W' V: J& Y; ^% k- J( \; i! A: bunsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
# h/ \' ^, o) u1 h7 @# QChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by; K/ U0 T: B4 `) r: T) C Z+ i. c6 d
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London2 G1 ~4 R K: t% N! J4 N& i
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
# X% U' H; x* A0 s* d' o( M5 J# rYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of1 [# O0 F6 k& W' T
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
! p3 f) m" u+ y4 [5 f, Qbefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
, f. I; i9 [2 _# Y7 I' l1 t, Y# Eit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
8 M; L% y Z) F( d' c8 q% w. Vpublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like) ^7 L [/ {6 T k
Nature.
) k7 I( K2 R, \0 U2 {, T6 Q* D3 WI hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
- c! R: w( b) S8 x/ K4 D# jthe Callaway report.
! [" k9 L) n6 i3 v' B
3 w* G* I7 H$ g) {1 h3 `8 x) EYi
2 f; f% `: |: }
, V, e3 V6 k. d9 PYi Rao, Ph.D.
6 L2 e( C0 |' T1 [Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
3 O- k( G- Z& t4 o* v U" NBeijing, China
4 M3 Z' N, n' c0 d3 v |
|