 鲜花( 5)  鸡蛋( 6)
|
本帖最后由 bigsnail 于 2012-8-4 10:50 编辑
+ y/ X4 r3 _1 [# T: D3 B' d# q# Q! L+ I
. r( O6 Z/ {5 G4 q" [, g# V饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。0 U. X4 H7 J6 {2 g" 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。& c7 g1 V/ j: S: F7 b
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
1 [! q1 B" Q! i( N* ] Q0 }) F+ V7 W6 b$ L8 b- T8 R% G
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html1 t4 Y" k. D( Q l
7 i( G! @# Y2 @( z9 ?" d- `8 e- w
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道 精选) k/ G1 F V, y9 p T
/ n7 ~0 Z( B% ]英文原信附后,大意如下:
/ P! T+ v; e( q2 t. g( h4 g* ]2 e! {; @; U! }8 v8 J( p5 W M8 c
斐尔,! D, [9 `; B4 Z- }' q1 G
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
, y) Q! e1 B+ nemail的人里面小部分也给我来信。
( f5 ?- O4 `* `, n 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$ A6 z4 @2 [3 H& F
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
% b% E# z7 N* ^# z7 e1 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。* V2 K$ X) b) x
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4 v. y( [0 s, D" I# T7 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
# m, {# Y7 @) I* n ?. ?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# g& X) I. i- E* T& |, R( s! t/ r' u
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。3 w% G; m1 P# V) n# z; ]2 ?, E
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. A( k/ \' q; J' \" U$ |* a# L1 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* w6 R1 p- z: ]
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。2 t( F/ R/ w* x* H5 x
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" [; L3 y) k$ l$ ~% R
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5 G/ {6 H% M; R( i; n
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。* s/ M! s+ _* q7 i% n. A
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+ ?5 B0 w4 ~" E( T
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
4 j1 `1 X, Y6 p$ N/ L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
2 E$ k) e2 l! @1 n8 V) e( ^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
' j& V; E7 ?9 t% ?/ r0 g% K300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
9 z' J8 H8 n% O& w% G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3 [' i4 u+ Z4 q) l5 L+ Y
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 H. R9 [, p0 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
; @+ D8 S* s& r/ @录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
4 t5 q# Y9 C: x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
/ d( Y- _/ e0 N) `3 ?8 c1》,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8 ~2 z8 {" a$ K& @: i% m1 X
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- ~ ~! a- A3 x* C- f
同意见的专家。
/ o5 g# o8 m4 g. W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
' G1 w& Q5 s4 ^& A1 q7 L- A! d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
' \" [4 {0 O! o/ w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
8 [$ B4 S7 `7 k/ ]4 `" w《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
. N% M& Z8 ^4 `. N8 i( M& zCallaway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), C8 @0 Y! y$ L* T A
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 N5 C; M4 l! 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* ^1 m% g) {. d2 s2 w2 |
这些被Callaway忽略。 r4 U: P0 R# X$ Y+ ^8 s# K2 [" 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
+ Z' @4 T, f( V4 d9 `' c2 q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 ], ?9 w& O
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。6 v1 @5 _# X9 b( y9 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4 Q% J: }& w# P \, x* x+ O) r9 r
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
8 |# F% c# w8 c8 U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9 b+ [ Z+ ^' J; X" T
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。
I. B% N9 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5 T2 D- ^4 H: H2 l: L: b
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. w Q& ^4 Y* B# j, `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
2 c/ ?: ` w7 d) r2 t”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。9 w0 ^# ^4 \: V3 x7 e7 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
" H3 z) F! P, u# d2 B) J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
1 Q- O$ l* f& E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 b- W9 z' s& c2 N- R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
S9 n- i% L" Q7 C& \( @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- a3 x5 U0 B( p# m% y9 J Q
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。0 Z: X' o$ F+ \* C1 J# c
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。/ Q' C# v: b* | [( E/ j- B3 h
5 \/ ~/ Q" n& d+ q
毅% J3 T) I7 w" u4 d8 P D& L- t
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅0 A0 F6 D" j) X
/ @% L: {2 P& j @% @附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
, x7 x/ z) _! E4 s- E( P1 X$ H附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email( F& Q- P, g, x, @* c" O
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
$ d% n, [* _% W, a' r4 F3 _0 {附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见6 ~5 v a, z% [% }4 Q6 I
; b! s% _" H/ {$ D6 B/ f, _) W+ B. g. S. D' E' g
' h! N4 R V! I* a9 f6 T
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)0 n, E) f# l1 c1 X7 }
Dear Phil,
: ]% Y4 M4 F) {4 }% ?: k You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
l6 [8 n r$ a" G: P, Q, w# Creport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20' Z" }& G2 K/ _6 e
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
% T" e! I9 [" [! Z uyou.
( p: F. d0 u5 V* Q# p, V If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
* t# Q, u! ?: |* Jbrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
5 m7 e6 \9 \( G& T9 A4 |4 Hreaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
4 _0 X" e5 _) G5 tworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature1 J( F! k$ O! k& E1 ?
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more( C/ c# _+ @, G9 [7 X
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
( z7 l& P' F& f! Kpieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
/ Z" t% R P/ f2 Z, O" o The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the5 W; o& t$ E B
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a3 ]; ^: T4 o) f6 o+ Y4 L
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
7 L( s- h" S( t7 L, s/ ?) M8 Athat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
2 M$ [3 {4 S( V4 f3 R# `7 mdid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping2 e% r& ?1 X, r) Z: O
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
& `( Z$ w; d$ o3 N! xstandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
7 H2 Y! }( v. Band could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone( i; W' Y2 Y: z% b% i
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
) M$ V" H0 q. c/ K7 e3 Kreporting.
. S( F" [% b; f% M7 f6 m; n I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
* B+ [# K- H1 p+ B7 \' dalready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by2 h/ F* |: f5 H7 R* k3 v: E, L, b
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
4 }: F: z/ `8 S. f1 ]. D% Msports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
; Y& ?" O1 o" u4 t1 }presumption of cheating has changed to doubts./ W/ [7 @+ b( y0 j% X9 P6 |* W/ q
The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
9 O: s; ~6 z( G* x2 P( Cmore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
+ b1 t6 @5 L+ A I% I/ `8 cfaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
' w4 j/ D! A' umeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
* g$ p: d* D1 i5 uevent for men, with the second fastest record.* D4 O Q0 p( m$ H- V- W, b+ P# h
The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
5 `) I" ~. E' l6 r8 [6 d- z- Qwas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
3 X( ^# s: M: e9 {& myear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
7 R( w) Y5 {0 G. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400' A9 r8 w' V) s7 C! |# m
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
) I. [/ ], B$ D5 q. R% Tfor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than, _0 N6 V. P7 x5 ^% N( i$ r2 ]1 p
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
3 W+ x1 X8 N' _behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the1 ]) i0 _5 J5 ~2 K# u
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
# M( f8 Y' R9 I/ x/ n8 `: C5 Ethan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
$ O3 Y, @3 L. Q8 y+ Qthose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was8 b1 j. t( c1 L% o4 G
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
7 B' n0 S. z! U& ]4 j; }9 ehe would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “1 v9 l3 G7 N* ^4 G+ z: U
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other7 N9 f j' i3 g- v$ J f! _# A
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the9 R% u* c! H! z5 f: p; H
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
% t3 n1 E( b( h& F, Z: L! B ^Callaway report.9 Z2 d7 Z3 c, n9 H2 U4 `# U
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
% y3 o5 @# W' K1 e# `understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
9 V( \. n# L$ _; chere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description* ^+ R/ D( P. U8 f8 H
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been4 n8 F! c5 D+ d; K& G
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the. n2 i2 c, P/ O8 H9 x/ m4 T2 }
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
1 {% A8 a9 D) O, v; Q+ Opublicly voiced different opinions.* n- ^; t, [5 r
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
1 \+ P8 q9 F3 t, A6 ^from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature; i/ H; P+ l) }3 q
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
# K' {+ M+ B! f Ypostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
; Y# C: e9 Z; P3 j' s$ B! w2 hyou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy: m. G8 d" f7 X; L. U
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.5 @0 r! n/ j' `3 h8 b
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
6 L$ S) `# Y6 W0 ethat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They9 A1 h* L" w' t8 Z j
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as) l- q' g* `. ?8 o5 U$ t
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that. ^( J: q7 {" t; j& K
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was) H8 `7 j8 o' y5 j' K
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.
+ |+ w$ j- `- nOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
/ F) \% s# j' R3 `. p1 W, Bmany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
' E/ r0 a9 W( m& ^* RChinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
* s# b* S) F2 J5 a(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
$ t$ N. u- E8 k$ M, i# Hand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
6 d* }, u0 I! vThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science
/ E$ y6 B3 `5 Q, L. Iand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
0 A; G/ t9 @9 `8 Y0 TDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
/ R3 R5 W% j' O& v z. b3 I( s/ M5 L$ p4 TNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and2 q o+ ?# D* F. m+ `- f4 V. h3 f
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
; I! y; x O0 ^/ \# h1 x! b* v4 uwhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
' s5 Z7 m& @# qrepair the damage caused by your news reporters.
) V2 w9 O6 n& Y) i) s0 V* AThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
9 b/ f- w- B: F9 p" H$ Q3 qshow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced3 e, T5 f, l Q" }/ B
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
& E, h: N* C6 Zfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that- k% Z& `+ O2 n
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”3 n, V# I4 ^# O7 q1 V3 a
about British supremacy.
4 q! S# D. H; l4 o9 rThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
' ~! f$ M0 J: Bunsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more1 X" K% K3 y% [4 t# E9 k
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by! x1 l, Y( M7 X; t2 I# o/ k/ p) m
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
: j2 v/ A8 W. z( _Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
6 d2 G/ B" q7 O: k- p2 q6 f; wYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of5 _+ A* X# l4 c2 S( P# D
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests6 k- N* I; y$ m3 G1 N8 p9 p& K
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
6 @% A+ h# C# Pit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
1 z- E x! S, g' j+ Jpublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
; n$ h4 w# r) E/ p! wNature.
+ n( [" K w8 H2 }% HI hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance+ l$ K% X7 _5 T# C3 L
the Callaway report.
) {. m ^/ ?4 z ~
`$ J: T" F6 ~: @Yi8 S/ `6 U, v$ o- P* c9 p' E* S
" ~8 q; {$ e7 X0 d, J( O9 T# C
Yi Rao, Ph.D.
7 H" s; {4 ^. D2 o/ q1 W& B2 LProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences6 y, H' u- B3 E* J- q2 V
Beijing, China
* |& M5 C; S9 i" H4 u7 u |
|