 鲜花( 5)  鸡蛋( 6)
|
本帖最后由 bigsnail 于 2012-8-4 10:50 编辑
) L" g. [ }( T' S9 i! f# C6 y6 W! m+ E* Y3 p
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。: {8 \' J' f4 f$ r7 |
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。
u) b: @0 U8 E7 A- W- ~总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。- L9 t t; W/ W- i
$ H2 S% N9 t' M+ ahttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html7 U# M3 g/ N, r N \
+ F3 A, S! n7 t致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道 精选1 h$ m2 ~9 Q4 h% n H$ e
" Y2 m8 ` n' h, h3 O3 G; }$ |英文原信附后,大意如下:
. \9 T8 r( B+ w1 i4 m+ ?- z( f8 g: f
斐尔,+ \, `0 b8 a5 x( ?9 w" P
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+ Z. d' R2 T) T+ o9 R% l
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。9 [. @* u) z! i
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/ | R. Y# h( k% ~0 o7 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
* h; t2 l. E5 R& T$ f/ b: t1 w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。; P4 Q4 T5 u9 V( F) _8 ?$ y) l
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' B; b+ l2 j9 G4 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
/ T8 [5 h3 q3 a0 [* u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$ u: Q7 a! m D1 ?( L
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。+ x' n0 E. A2 a f
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
1 j4 s+ i# \" b6 ?& Z/ n: A" V,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) p, a; M( k+ {- T”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。9 j' n$ X/ J. 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
5 J( b% t3 y1 T& ` C+ B1 [! b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
H" a w; C7 _1 j5 o,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。, s# ^8 y+ f( S8 G& [6 t$ _* E
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
: Y. G% c3 x) c# k& Z) M0 ~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
* E8 C9 A5 w2 K* A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
+ S5 `. S9 K& \( e$ R$ r6 I5 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: O3 E" `) L4 o5 X* @' N; ]
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
7 r9 J. W' O8 q. X' @8 k2 V' z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0 {3 _8 E5 p+ ?4 O1 B2 B7 U! V5 B
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
! o8 D6 R/ K* g' \4 C: 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
4 t8 G2 P0 }' o录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
: Y4 Z' m& ?* {/ J& q5 B9 e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# A. I# y' m0 t1 \; V3 u8 A8 X
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
! x% A9 w! h5 ~6 S! TWikipedia。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% m. J" J3 E# g& k- A4 r h
同意见的专家。8 `+ t* G7 {6 ?+ a B1 f
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1 y" ^# ]; z5 x2 y0 M
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
0 f5 `- A+ n% ~9 [3 \/ h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6 Z* } B# T0 j9 J4 X9 V$ Y2 B
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。% w. b4 F/ k- I7 C3 h2 Q% y
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)
8 S0 k6 @( n5 q' G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
: r* _) ^" O" i0 g1 Y# |, f! m《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9 x; L/ u& ^ x& n6 w- L7 E
这些被Callaway忽略。
5 V; w& c+ ?# Z8 D; X* D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6 m) ?5 p, i% ?1 Z2 O6 B! m# j
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) e( c, V, m6 B6 L
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。& Q, {( `4 T1 y2 z8 a, p! Y- I
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, A, o' d1 s- ^7 k
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! t& Y6 F) b/ x6 Q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/ C, ^ ^6 u) R. m+ h2 V
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。& L* j4 E0 v# o
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 s1 ~6 g: P
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
( ?- F" S0 w# B" }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
4 @! ~4 ~" Q S' a”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。' O- J7 d7 ]7 |
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
. I! Z; l, R- I3 O$ }; ^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: v4 Q; k: O n3 i
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 ]" Z* v: B& ]3 N3 g/ q
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
5 u" M5 X$ v* z6 @( S. ^* Z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7 A) ?# H% C5 P: w, s: w0 o
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
* C! p& ]9 G) @# C) e0 [8 s我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
4 Y! B% c. Y( E
( j2 ^) Y) F, i2 m: K6 f毅2 z+ i5 I1 b( B$ e* W5 K! U
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅% g0 t1 p: ?7 z& F2 O: ~) |
{1 z& ^# t }1 P2 d8 U7 N
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
5 s" f- [2 z% p# z9 e附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email3 i5 d9 \. h$ e' l9 D4 o: U
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见" T; W! U! I$ A$ }2 t
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
0 ^3 z& \: p; a- T' u
1 P) k' x ^# f8 Q' M O2 t6 k, `9 Z& h& h6 O8 }( x
7 a" o' B2 y- L3 B6 D原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)! p( g; e( w \0 Y) u
Dear Phil,( C c$ x, O" z
You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s, ?' U% X7 s n& A v! Q9 `
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
" v$ ~0 N. P! X b1 fhours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
6 T1 L: R6 h/ w5 m T1 R( ^) eyou.
+ w$ ~$ r$ }, c1 a$ m: F, R If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have" O" g5 J$ I1 H5 @* w+ d. `$ G, D0 K
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese( z1 G Z3 R8 `3 a" Z
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the( h% s, y0 }1 a: x7 `: x
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature- E. R% l( W2 B D/ e6 W5 F
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more8 Y0 g5 y; y7 Z- N
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
, B# j2 e+ `$ ?; N9 l9 b; F% T$ cpieces much more than the regular Western news media would.% [8 s. k8 b, f# C
The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the0 P# d( H9 J" o. u) I# l1 f% e
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a. r7 V4 J1 [9 A$ c
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
! J5 X% G8 q. P- G0 P& C- G$ Othat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
6 F# q. c% H, u( b- edid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
( Q7 m: O4 o8 L+ S) Mexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal8 [2 s+ u* B. h! O, p% J) Y( x8 l( T
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,. j$ {' S* `( S- z3 [8 E1 A
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone' L/ y2 [& _% d3 m. T7 `- ]: H
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news0 b) } q$ v% A% i! \
reporting./ F6 f" J4 U" e/ `
I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have: \8 V, g- M1 H9 X5 f
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by' s0 S U7 Z. ~: X- [/ Q3 Y
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in; [% ^2 K: r \1 u; O" p
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A m" F% g+ ^4 l1 Z/ g7 c; \
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.6 S/ n U7 ^1 R0 a# b4 Y/ ^# n+ w
The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem: _/ c7 \4 z7 k$ M0 L
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds7 k( E; e# \3 y" d0 h% H
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50 }0 M0 {7 K" p# ?; a1 d, X$ K# m
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
& s! R5 t @+ e! zevent for men, with the second fastest record./ ~* w% o) n& ?0 w9 w' `, W
The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
& x" h( v" a% N; _6 p6 ewas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16) b7 @7 k8 c' y" P. G7 v" y
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
- z+ A$ T. m+ p0 U/ D. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400. ~( b" C, K: }$ a" `8 m
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,, r& w( ~+ J m8 J) y( b: C& F
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than; {; t8 O- B% f' s; m, ]5 L
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
# z! S$ m) u, e& A0 Kbehind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
S, v5 M _. }5 k/ oindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower9 x- B) T3 h$ l5 _ f) u$ v; {
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
1 n( e a* O* ?& sthose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
1 Z& H8 w+ `& ]8 ?her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then* X% t. V" V: y" @. n! W0 y% w6 A! j
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “' b( Q1 [" P" u2 b
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
- Y/ m$ W2 u6 r% Dswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
, x! }) b9 J3 t( b/ Tteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
, h5 e0 ^0 o1 z( yCallaway report.
a7 u2 W ^ M/ g( [ @! k/ A, ?There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more. K9 A4 ? u; e# {
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details) }3 U3 v" t! b8 C# o1 z
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
' z" b0 `, |+ D& ]4 G" Zof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
# _! p8 x2 c7 s; N2 i, sbetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the6 R$ a7 v L9 s0 m% c" {3 ~4 _
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had# F$ {* p9 W+ E7 v) c
publicly voiced different opinions.) J0 E( f5 a" s' u2 A! e
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
+ H' C4 |8 R# ]! l* z7 Afrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature5 u. ?0 K8 c* Q9 S2 d; V
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent6 ^, P& C$ J- N. n" q
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
$ |" O- H7 P( {+ N, {you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
9 `& h/ [5 N3 W4 c! sof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.& F: c R3 Y8 N" Q
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
) U/ B9 S. k0 d- _8 {0 P, J: Sthat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They( b, a# i8 u i f$ p- ]4 E
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
( i8 P" `6 K/ w4 n# |Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that& ~7 q+ |# z7 S
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was% E; ?7 P% A+ }8 U k
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.1 y/ u* c2 S' V7 T2 c$ \& h9 \
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that6 o, B% I) f/ u7 w6 I
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
2 I% V% W" W' i' @( K; ^6 Y5 v8 ?' I4 KChinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June! J) E. V. ?& N% \: V" f
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she% S& y+ U. G' w7 `# a, J* }
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.$ k4 s6 c( Q X2 S& u" v$ B
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science
' {1 x+ O" S5 y8 c: L4 \- i pand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and0 E8 s2 r5 n8 S7 e/ ^ ?, {( L
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
" N) a7 ^- q8 x) ^: }Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
0 _5 `" ^( N5 D+ xobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
+ c% z( k+ y4 ~what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to& Z9 G& k; r: m# `) W- E+ r; b
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.) _" W3 M1 {7 f; r+ e0 L# R
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
! h# E+ P7 n! S& Zshow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
& I+ `( O: r7 T- B. l7 _2 W' hus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather/ J: Z$ K7 h4 x! b; T
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
7 U+ f. |8 ?( r6 J7 ]4 i! xthis report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
+ o1 X- A( v8 \& ^: pabout British supremacy. Z! h' i& T4 t& g! ^/ i
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many$ T( e, E7 I3 G& H5 u
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more/ u& [1 g* I. p! k1 E2 s
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by% n7 v1 b9 e+ `, E8 S
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
% S3 z& r% G$ \! tOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.+ N6 R$ k9 E+ \6 _
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
) W. ?9 h4 @6 r0 k5 f+ E) Hprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
4 R9 U: M7 M0 y1 F* X% F# Qbefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
/ Q, x& `* D- i' H; E9 J8 Q7 Kit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly8 Q3 w9 a- V U# _2 z
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
0 b- t6 _) b7 yNature.
: e+ Z/ p* q2 Z$ D$ ^; mI hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
: q: X ~, C, e( V0 @the Callaway report.
) K/ a) m& ^( X$ E" i$ R4 Z) s/ b, [5 O' i0 J: X- o
Yi$ I# `9 }0 e+ b& T* t6 d9 p8 W
8 @6 N- e/ c% W, s6 f8 W, s1 u( dYi Rao, Ph.D., I/ g: t: z( x$ `2 P- }: D8 b( C
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
9 q$ G7 b9 ]. z. k# WBeijing, China
2 w+ t; y% m3 X- o |
|