 鲜花( 5)  鸡蛋( 6)
|
本帖最后由 bigsnail 于 2012-8-4 10:50 编辑
& {, U2 t! S1 H8 R2 s0 Z, K
1 o) \6 W3 q4 T; D2 }饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。/ I/ g1 C0 N5 |, i
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。
2 m" t( ?6 k" Q- W# r, O总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。; R# p+ U, L6 }
. ~; L5 F Q: e T8 y
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html4 J# R: |. [; s- [
, T1 `' i N' Z9 B0 }2 |致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道 精选! W, H# O1 |% h5 ~
& Z2 k8 w2 i3 T$ @, H8 I/ w3 D5 d英文原信附后,大意如下:0 b/ Z& {: I+ u1 L& E7 d4 t
! {+ |. n8 j7 C3 `斐尔,0 b5 L# z; ~) O
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
# j) o3 a# C! A& j- [9 v1 e: uemail的人里面小部分也给我来信。
0 _: l9 r8 _6 c1 a- v% f) 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) `6 S* Z! f7 O% _; U
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% A V# `. |' p$ X1 E4 o/ i" B
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。! W) t0 N% [2 N- I" V' ]: v7 R
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; G8 {& h" R# k/ q0 @+ _
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1 `1 g4 _. ]/ h% c
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 @3 i* g" b3 q) F
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 }) x8 Y8 }, d3 D+ s6 R" c
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
* Q5 _; y8 x# w1 Y3 z p4 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
: y" A' f! B0 i! ^”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。/ a1 P6 V8 H" B" s" |0 y) ]4 J, l
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! o. l" c/ r6 Q( H- 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# p5 S, P; G& e' v6 i" P
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。! \) b9 I; _7 _9 p! O
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9 p) T4 H. Z W g: p
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
! E3 U) F) P5 [2 a2 P, ]8 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
# H5 Q: E7 i8 L% I- ^ 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4 `4 _2 A' ?9 D+ q0 i# y: @. X
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* W0 k& h F# q- C% ]& j
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5 K9 E6 H, y& T
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
( v8 p B( }2 q/ W。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
9 J, D* F' [, h+ H! o" V录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
C5 l; B1 D( d, r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- b- b4 C4 t2 }3 ^0 w8 l8 {
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
L; N1 s' p2 k: Q) k5 G: LWikipedia。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2 ]' ~7 c1 x2 I7 \4 C
同意见的专家。
! M7 F. N2 z( `" e. w" q- x; e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, U8 W' N R9 G/ A7 \
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: d" K" ^3 e1 N5 a: A. c/ n
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
" D- m/ t1 x' u《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
' w' H/ R/ s6 f% D8 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)
- ]6 h4 `* P; O) K: `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
) I" m0 l) Z. O. K! O% D《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& H2 t5 S c5 l( a6 @
这些被Callaway忽略。& L) u% _, N0 [/ i+ F" E' j
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
! c- W, Q2 h5 D7 O9 f( X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# V( q& }0 c6 S
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
6 ]) A* X( i" Y( E3 h$ _8 C |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# b8 u. ^7 Q* w+ b2 |
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
3 i; J) u5 N0 z/ ~% }) V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
: {8 G% F9 o5 _ z( 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。$ Q8 d# G) r5 r% M
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 G' j, Y `; z; n1 e
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9 B' Y1 M) p7 w( Z8 S) C4 P/ Q
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 j+ Y$ j7 ]* s; j" m
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。- W6 g0 ?+ p1 ` k4 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
3 Q' g1 p, y1 f: @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% Z4 I( \' ? h" g5 g9 t
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 \. d4 k' c& i; U7 ]
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
& D1 L9 l$ B2 t# o$ C, f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6 K2 T* ]# ]$ E; G
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。5 R H8 x' N! ^$ U& T; F+ O- ?+ ]/ D
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。! L: z' ^9 g5 N! C
- X+ c$ K9 K- d2 }% ]/ V" L5 z毅
% B1 _ d: T: {0 d/ ]北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
8 p2 k: Q8 Z) w, r# D) X% x- J+ t8 a, u' K
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
$ l, O' u9 @/ U/ Z, j1 V附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
$ i, p( |! `6 Q: o0 G3 g5 H附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见6 i" W- l2 X; r' e6 X
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
6 n) q1 h+ B, l/ s, w# C4 |! c. X' V8 W4 q' j4 D! ~
1 i% U9 J% s6 Z3 U* \4 s% J
) ^- _$ {) p& M# H原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)8 X$ f, n- y9 L3 z! v$ {
Dear Phil,7 E; v* n2 U7 `! \7 \7 c$ h3 t
You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s9 e. `, [* x! n* H/ {: l3 G! O% G
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 201 B, W4 u( M; B) w# B! u
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed# Y ~1 E% y4 G0 z* N1 s
you.2 q" ^& g$ O; s2 q1 k+ x
If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
. O& y% R: `: J2 |* g* Qbrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
2 @0 v. W- G# M7 Treaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the+ Y5 t; V5 U, [ ]- {* L
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
- ]7 H' t& Q+ tpublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more( B* D+ m- p7 V: H' v. b$ G
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news+ O' [3 k4 A, {. Q) R5 p0 f1 H# N
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.# T9 @4 X- {! \, y3 }& K
The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the4 p8 l3 u9 n, {0 ~$ h
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a7 ?$ A7 R9 {: j1 p
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
8 J$ F7 E8 k0 M% B% h' ?) I/ @5 X) Othat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway1 m% j; \ U6 ?# p
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping# y3 ?7 S. o' P/ R
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal7 G0 k+ R6 B) d+ @6 x- T
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
" r" B2 F, J a) O1 s/ qand could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
' k0 B1 X8 S* U- V: |to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
& {# W) l9 D2 ]3 G3 o( Vreporting.
5 L y8 q3 Z9 T7 T6 O0 X/ {, Z8 L I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
, p \) A$ a2 X3 j: ~3 |! ^2 }already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
, o- \4 w$ T& P# @+ ^# i$ G4 jchanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in! K$ T9 j6 l4 s3 e
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A8 q- f, Z* t; D) C3 b
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
9 t1 R6 V/ |* u4 o The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem1 B/ m+ T3 g6 K5 [* _2 N
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
5 h; D1 t( w1 @: S6 I' ?faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50% W" ?, i1 |7 i7 W5 D: w l8 `
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same; X* A& d+ \( J# q# n3 `
event for men, with the second fastest record.) _( J. e$ ~9 Z
The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
5 S- ?$ V) ^8 T9 L% Ywas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16! A! x; Z% s* t1 L
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
! J n% o% l0 K* x. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
2 |( i N( K$ Bmeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,% @# e0 ?% I3 n V; p7 T
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than+ G% Q2 z0 b) A# h% V- q: ~- [
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
S6 h* Q X% Fbehind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
; j% J' w y! ]" t7 M8 U9 mindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower' D* c4 D2 L; s; C
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than1 ]. B" {, j' u0 q p
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was; F% t" n# j6 t* [
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
0 Q' g& f! C; G# ihe would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “1 D8 ?, u/ C6 r* i
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
& t/ d# S, P" |8 D6 Vswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
! W" N9 N9 `4 X3 f hteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
" n; z8 L! c' J/ hCallaway report.+ h ?9 r5 ?! y" @( Y
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
2 T- D s4 C0 \) G" u6 a5 @2 _understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details7 H+ x8 Q7 G s3 L" s
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description. O1 i& s; l7 c
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been) q" g' K$ x; h) P. N6 b* E
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the3 d. \0 G' q1 ^* @$ L
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
6 U. @: l) c& g1 X+ a/ S) X" {publicly voiced different opinions.
. U5 k) h1 X# N; ]) y; nYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD1 w/ p7 I) N$ b; l
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
, ^8 {# i/ P- ]. ONeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent' v' w+ ?/ B& S' R5 h! H+ q
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds" K9 i O# S% n2 x5 a1 G& g
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy/ Q2 s& m# W2 ?: {' @
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue. Z3 w9 ^# T; S6 e2 b
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
! s" G& U6 Q0 K. w1 F6 x" kthat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
9 x; t8 P8 S# U5 {; A, a; H* vhave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as2 [6 [( S) P3 b- H
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
5 h3 o) P) h+ A) x4 r# ythe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
9 [: d1 i( I8 m c0 B' R9 A- I3 rsupported by facts neglected by Callaway. E j- ^. O% n$ {2 N& z
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that9 y$ Y' S8 m L
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the) Y5 b( _" {/ w: i
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
L+ ^/ L4 V5 ^0 ]0 E3 ?+ p3 |7 O(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
) |! E& V$ H5 ^and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
, g7 D' g+ n( y2 lThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science! m, \2 y$ C( r8 Q
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and7 n$ l- t, [. r1 S
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.! ?; Q7 w: a9 `" j1 U
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and' ?5 @- A* ]' z- y
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
6 U& o1 U1 m; `7 U6 Owhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to8 `5 N9 q! G( W! g! v: E8 @
repair the damage caused by your news reporters. u1 o% b' V* T
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
7 I) y: p2 P) f* ?0 y( D jshow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
. W1 X6 r" L& ?& Y/ H9 [2 jus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
% D# j1 X* X$ S7 i; a0 _0 Hfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that* g8 ^4 V2 d% l$ L: ?! x- V
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
$ [! F' R. |9 W1 z3 I7 pabout British supremacy.
' l" ]4 K' ~. C* w9 `- {% mThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
0 Y4 o7 c0 M" n4 Nunsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more: h7 U; `) y$ Z" C4 T
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by& B3 o# X" G0 p" v1 {" N
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
g3 U- j8 g" rOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
) f y, G0 A1 ^% |) B' v- ?' HYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of5 R+ a5 o0 p4 e# U6 ]
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests4 L7 F) l0 e" e. A2 d0 w
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,- Z9 R4 t- z3 p& A6 X
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly4 v. t$ |9 I3 D m, c
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
& l9 q" S' v4 H8 o3 BNature.0 u- u8 C4 z0 O
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
" L/ k V& A" J7 d% m6 qthe Callaway report.) _* v l. Y1 a3 z
! g1 C I1 K3 N/ |" `* M, m& h
Yi
$ Y! j- S. L( t4 w9 J8 q7 F& a; C; w
2 v* F" K3 ]0 g, vYi Rao, Ph.D.
6 T( S9 b% Y5 sProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
4 h. ]% L, F) c5 @3 |Beijing, China4 l0 L$ @9 b9 v- _8 k/ B( e' h
|
|