 鲜花( 5)  鸡蛋( 6)
|
本帖最后由 bigsnail 于 2012-8-4 10:50 编辑 + z" v" d8 w0 w, L: s
) {% }7 g; L8 `! P9 O饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。+ C/ w% T: S- J
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。
% X3 N' s* X: M: q: Z总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。" u- c; ]# E. \
& H& ~" A& ?2 O* ?
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
1 x# c% g0 W3 A; i: R# ` \3 Z: v! u" B% l7 u8 q5 j
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道 精选
6 |. k# w# b3 f/ R" l4 H$ }
; U( b0 x4 K, ~英文原信附后,大意如下:
1 B4 f" }8 e; V3 v, R0 L- q! u1 S8 `8 O* r. P
斐尔,/ y: v" L# }- t! i5 s
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5 X9 M1 t$ @7 v3 D
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。
$ Z# i4 w `( c6 J6 F 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
8 E( f; Q Z5 b. A& \/ \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
4 U4 @( }6 q8 \8 K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。+ f" ~+ b* O; {
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
" `. l; h6 P4 V! n- C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 ?2 J X- r6 i- P1 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$ o! Z7 f/ t( F0 n4 J
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。0 u: X9 ?$ {+ C, i
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
7 i5 i* A4 Q8 t* \,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, ~, z; B; |( J# Y) z
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
/ F( s; c! N) p, i! K 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' [/ Y8 G2 S! {* \6 {
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
) u+ U8 `6 ?5 z4 d,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
" P/ Z" d9 s3 e2 D$ z5 N' h 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2 e# B( ~& A; Z3 T, @; W
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/ Q6 U: L: U0 U% z- ?
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
$ |, @/ n* @" }$ P8 C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, t' N5 q; N* W' t4 f1 e* K% t7 \
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、六2 b% W( h; D& ?; P4 @
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
! F1 H4 j1 J, J/ [( G 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
- P' M; f2 h9 J" W6 H* a。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% _. g' T9 Q- [( n# j- N5 Y r
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
- Z( z% c! B$ r4 ]& m. 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$ c# M5 t \3 B5 R% A
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2 L# l7 A: C p
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
5 X6 z6 q7 U' Y9 Z* P9 C同意见的专家。
8 {5 A3 E; K3 g; @. F8 E0 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
$ W- s& C* p# l0 j) d1 ]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 o' I, v9 Z/ y7 y
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 \( K9 \; l% d, f《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。' `! \4 h& k7 |, R" N, A* f
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)# f( S% {7 T" ~ b4 s$ z2 W+ t
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
7 F8 q$ ~6 @1 I. c" i《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) U$ {" x* l& d' y; |
这些被Callaway忽略。
2 d3 K8 i; N8 [0 R. H( K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# j6 O/ C. I' x/ Q* p5 H0 w- k
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& q* }( _! U9 g/ {: x% M
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。% [3 A9 @' e( M0 v3 v. }3 ^
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 u( w) V. y' h+ B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 N) o' G: a4 y5 J
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- w3 I% ?% p6 } R; i5 o
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。+ E" {# [' \* b& E
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/ V: s) S, i9 }+ g+ q. Z
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
1 S# J& V# F7 E$ |: Y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
1 h' }$ v& w/ F”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
) U" z# Q& a/ ~+ F, F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 o# `4 s y6 V
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
( o6 D& O0 u# j/ V1 _* H 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
6 y& Z$ |$ F) d/ J6 K$ f% W/ s) A$ J0 Z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: Z7 U/ [" R# [4 D
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: _" i3 q# }5 h
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
o i4 g, y7 M- b, @我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。7 V) T: L/ P8 K8 m3 K$ a, D$ }2 z
, q& Q. {3 s/ i' Q, z3 g! G" N/ @: o, s毅4 g- L# C9 u4 v$ [! N- i
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅3 M5 [ |/ r I2 e/ o$ c
9 a4 Y; o$ {' o) r- E1 r) {7 t: i! ]
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
1 e* D# t% @. I, |( U附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email# }" g" E8 ]* C2 m& a7 s! D
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
# O" `; p7 v3 a/ E: `附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见: P, p4 l1 I3 r; I2 U
7 K0 Z! d) L3 Y9 ?/ d3 x3 H
0 x/ r7 N2 e/ p! Y4 @
8 j h4 i% k" T$ u! q原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)! r! P( z( |5 h8 b2 \6 s
Dear Phil,
) ~/ ^' m* F7 I" ? You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s, I7 t3 `, G3 q. K
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
3 D* G8 {5 ]* J6 Q) W. Ahours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
+ x* K! {( b9 X8 G0 g' nyou.- r. u/ C5 c( A' \0 [$ w
If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
2 j! F1 L/ c# f5 n6 o: p9 M# ]brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
* N* E) X5 w/ h5 Breaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the6 @7 L0 {+ a- o
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
9 [+ C. c' Q: ^publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
: {; A! ~& y, f1 q" M& t2 ?seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news& C. n/ C1 z# ~& y# p L8 l) E8 {; I
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.+ j3 T* o, d9 Z7 P
The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
: x4 n* }7 U3 @5 n hworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
# j& K! X B8 d7 l: F# a1 K5 Snegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish( ]7 g1 d, y% x E- C ~: C
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway1 P9 H0 A2 O; m7 _
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping7 R$ x' _9 ?6 f+ b" a4 D4 ?
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
7 L* q6 x6 d' ostandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,( x8 @2 Q3 Z* L% r
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone! {1 [$ m! d4 w$ o* ~
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
# X* p! N( H; ?% Y3 R7 greporting.) S b1 O) p* e: h$ V
I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have4 n2 G9 |3 s* r! ~7 S
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
6 ]2 w' S+ p% F- Gchanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
( I2 M: Q( o! K$ N& L$ j1 }' gsports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A2 o9 {1 y; q+ ^' _8 G
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.5 L% H. G( O: I& M8 S& o B
The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem* L4 I7 V) C0 D- o- Z2 n }
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds4 ?: R/ Y5 T! t/ E& G) |- e1 L
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 502 \( U( l7 k% [' j3 d
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same1 i! L1 H* C, o! x9 t( e
event for men, with the second fastest record.& S0 |5 x: K- e# E$ I% x
The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye# E. C0 b. w, w: ?1 C3 z; a
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
# r$ O; {2 r0 b" D6 Iyear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record4 L# q( R8 R5 g. y" S9 A- d
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 4006 ~* }# `' \6 R! ], x
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
3 w& P- B. y" e5 [1 cfor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than u7 u1 g. q$ k: C3 h
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed. L9 F) K! n; I) R
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the2 k/ |) M: o2 l, N/ M
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower$ }% a8 w% H/ \0 R6 C
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than2 {4 o! `: |/ S% L2 z
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
! U! V3 q3 I: Z* m' Z8 Kher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
0 x: z( T; e8 j, p8 Q# Y2 F; Khe would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “! o x2 j! f4 Z' A4 n: x/ @' y6 ]; ^
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
' P3 Q0 q3 \8 o8 ~swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the: E$ g5 p- O- r8 a5 J" k/ A% X% S7 T8 z
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the2 R+ H5 q! q# E/ G# O* y
Callaway report.2 j0 u2 p2 Q- ]1 l
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more/ J5 l" O; r, ~0 r9 _ g E
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details' E0 m4 n1 r5 D1 U2 | K0 k
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
* u; g X, u3 c- s2 iof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been7 U2 ^' a8 N5 C; Z" E4 `) Y
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the0 Z/ L7 j; N# L' ~; n
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had3 C" x5 j$ G1 W+ D" p$ H
publicly voiced different opinions.
' W9 u: [/ A( wYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
& I; R, r5 p2 J2 D( ?/ B9 p) Pfrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
. C$ W% z& r! Z m. C* o: hNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent6 `6 @, _0 f$ ?4 x i. x
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds: R! `* [1 i: D8 t/ {& {# Q
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
7 T. p( I: N# Q/ ]; H. ?, X5 Gof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.! m5 |0 p0 @: Y+ M8 p0 T* s; w6 }
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think9 W: p' E) D; U& ]8 S2 N3 \6 w2 [
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They" g6 `( k0 {8 t B$ r6 w
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
( e' c3 ]! n, K4 _9 Z, z5 [Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that3 Z; I; u3 D( w- Y. T' J5 k2 {: L
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
5 v/ [& A A. j |" ssupported by facts neglected by Callaway.
# N) E `1 @% `8 X* s8 nOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
7 V1 r+ G6 u" g4 Omany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
) @1 @0 f: ]- U7 MChinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
) P" h( d. a9 o& O, C(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
0 n3 J; h. j( Y6 |4 r! w/ Zand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.2 z& M. o9 p% h3 G4 f
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science
9 Y' x3 c8 f+ x' i$ _" Band your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and, @$ Q S0 H' `* }( \. z6 q" q9 U
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.: o+ ?* u- B* @' p( d
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and9 B7 O/ ], K8 ~; B( y. M
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
/ ~) S, K* _9 V8 I2 J* s: mwhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
5 ]& k) T9 [6 J# X8 e0 M% Frepair the damage caused by your news reporters.
+ h! Q" z+ L& I1 e* S- ]The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not6 K. J( t, w1 q, e1 @- A& T# `
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced0 F* [" r' @3 Q* k
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather$ g3 X' x/ B) J! K& L1 U# F
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that l; I8 j3 n+ c. v
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”, u% Y( G9 C, @9 |
about British supremacy.2 l1 } z) J) q( L" d6 y8 i
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many& v+ B+ L0 e) k/ O9 ]4 t
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
) b+ O$ n/ s. F* o3 S9 AChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by$ q( {. a: D) Y
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
8 e2 e% w/ K! \. _4 F/ COlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.' u0 ^! i$ N H7 o+ s% ? Q
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
- T$ c; T& F6 cprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
. b1 S( T' R6 j2 Rbefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,, T$ N+ [2 S' h* Y, r* s
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
@6 G: |6 m5 Upublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
% a' V; T" i- p: mNature. L# J7 w5 [8 z. Q" Y
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
, B5 M8 c" n( G' \+ _, W1 Othe Callaway report., ` @% m- a9 C* T3 f6 U: M: {
^6 F) _7 R4 J3 |, r
Yi
X6 Y* }5 P2 r/ u1 H; V7 Q, |4 i
Yi Rao, Ph.D.
8 h# C- J/ ~8 E2 \ ?Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences+ K) |9 j. t9 t! u6 n: S
Beijing, China
- g) S# h# q" Q/ m6 D, ^+ L$ j |
|