 鲜花( 5)  鸡蛋( 6)
|
本帖最后由 bigsnail 于 2012-8-4 10:50 编辑
! j6 h6 U1 Y- C2 i3 E! Y
1 t5 x: H4 R0 e- d1 p# z5 ?饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
: Y2 f% _$ t0 H( c! h# a: |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。
3 m' y9 @ u T" H( y7 e7 H5 o6 c总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
: w$ M, ?2 K: c4 _8 }0 X' t# z, r: E& u
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html2 X# B- {9 d: _$ J
2 e0 Y" W' K* Z6 e致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道 精选& U8 E9 B j/ l* w
8 U. h2 y; R$ a5 B* q% j6 U) l+ |英文原信附后,大意如下:8 ], s4 @3 m! j
, S4 ^$ X/ z9 C& u V0 ?6 n+ d
斐尔,) J+ `+ x: D2 W1 z- j& @
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1 \) }6 f1 {9 u2 L2 V
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。
3 ?0 I7 B2 c7 s! z" |0 L8 x9 Q! G 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
|( v8 F s9 S( p; \8 A0 Y& d' ], 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# C0 L8 L5 v& F0 u0 v' I9 U
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。$ d( m$ ^/ @ N. V
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
6 O! `0 e3 p7 Y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% x6 R0 y" g6 U3 G6 D; K
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7 G4 j q: r3 ]! b$ Q/ r
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。
2 S6 s1 S( m+ _) S. A0 |/ `- c% 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! y, @9 D$ \5 h1 e W% [4 A% f
,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' t: F/ f) E. k' g- s
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
6 L) z3 _# [, `' H; P2 U9 e 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 V7 @# {6 G! r- 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
7 p$ R; S8 d' _* k6 B,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。/ d% k, \) n7 G0 F0 t
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
3 z5 F F. T6 x9 e3 Q& m3 ]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/ x. H7 k* q$ }
合泳400米中最后自由泳一段比Lochte快,而非整个400米。Lochte在400米是世界第二4 {7 _, ^0 h. f0 n
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
9 q; x! f* C4 E6 B, T300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
1 q9 X7 V8 v. K$ E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6 O) P. k8 N8 J# d- j! k
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
1 E8 O- s l4 z F。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
+ ~2 I w' ]) [& {录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。% g5 D7 F* l( y- V# L# \
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0 A. z! J; N! F' c" l# b* t
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3 v* s. m+ i q3 @
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
8 n1 B* c' K2 r, d8 Z同意见的专家。3 b* N7 O* F% |# l3 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, U7 j4 c+ _* f* U
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) `1 B, y9 a2 F
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4 k( V% u" B- W/ i( p
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。$ D1 v- a T5 y3 h2 L! r
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)
& q; i( ~/ B) {7 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" }0 A7 x4 q& _
《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
( H5 h9 W. E) G% A9 l这些被Callaway忽略。
8 |* y, x' C8 ?! m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" J* g( e9 R2 h* f+ J7 F
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8 t4 c) |# n, p
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
! Y5 g! q3 g9 t8 ^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: u9 T% U& k! d% P( K+ 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6 W: U! H. P9 G
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 {' J( ~/ u, f* i2 I) |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。
( m, P6 B) m0 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# z& |; Q' B& |) ~3 W
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) o ~! V. z5 E/ r0 g
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 Y2 q N7 } r6 A" X+ V
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。: c* J# x% p1 n& O
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
5 Q/ J2 G% E# k3 q' t6 S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' j9 H; L# E: v$ T5 M
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
- D! |2 x8 C0 D# C" S+ @. E3 F3 c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
6 T3 U) l* l3 R+ L# E, M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
% |' T0 F$ u+ g而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。: b, n6 E8 ^- G O
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
" r+ N5 h0 i) X/ q, n0 Y S( C1 D
/ G1 c! X2 F& K1 [% z z毅
- _; x3 m5 m. q$ s5 e% l北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅3 ]2 r; W6 T1 |& }
% E( r! R! r1 Y5 I: W1 m
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
0 ?4 y. ^+ |1 z7 N* s$ y8 Z附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email, Q( V) H0 |0 G. I0 M
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
0 L; N- D# B. f' Z% D; A1 ]+ T5 [' Z附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
" [8 I) X. i' `4 J r# V% c/ O5 D! d' f Z
6 d. N* ?2 j9 q& u: L" I# U+ y# a2 y5 Y: N* _( Q: ^
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
* u8 D2 ^8 S! fDear Phil,
1 q' I* Z* K P3 ]0 ] You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
, H2 b; f) l0 L: \. W4 b! \report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 200 d* [% Y: Q$ [# Z- S- {8 `- r9 B* ?. n
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
1 [/ n- ~- \1 C2 h Xyou.
6 H: m% E. K1 c$ u, F, ^ If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have* t" {3 f! v9 \+ ^6 ]
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
, |7 R$ P1 I' \1 e% H% ~0 ?% g& Greaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the$ P. t9 `: X3 z- @
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
0 X+ M0 e, R, G) T3 ]publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
! U7 |" w+ s6 b$ Sseriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news5 o* f. a% O" B2 N4 T, A7 R5 y' q
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.7 ?! o# a8 p" T1 v' g, ^* T9 {) f
The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the' B$ M) ^% C( H
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
% @* [3 ?* i! o# n6 |2 T" P6 f+ Anegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
9 u/ b6 u5 P. ^0 N; U2 l& ~, p: G* |that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway( L3 x9 L' S( g7 {/ A# x
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
! [6 q) w/ a' J9 K e3 pexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal: O" q# o; W, S& D
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible," m' q( o( W+ Q6 k
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone2 v9 N( _; }0 l0 u7 Z" x/ T! Z
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news4 g6 L# ^% E8 h7 g/ p }& b
reporting.
+ n( ]( X1 i' R, m. B" j3 P6 x I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
, o" f* H8 c- S4 B% Zalready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
9 ? l+ E* C7 a+ Gchanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
2 c# [3 J7 Q- e3 C+ Csports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A6 {8 e; @. P, X
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
6 l! b, }# Z1 A% I The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
3 K# w, Y5 G$ D; z! V, X3 t: l$ Zmore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
- W @" A9 D' j: B$ tfaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 508 k$ Y- \! g- M3 y
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same; \1 H5 o" }0 Z+ x% w/ c
event for men, with the second fastest record.1 L# V( p' ]/ A6 b3 P
The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
2 B% Z+ r3 n4 \was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
1 H& N0 v6 Z' J5 k5 H" j! Eyear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record5 g- m% f0 I3 M4 G. ?# k( m
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400$ x# ?+ _# b0 H, ^7 A
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,' C, u8 r. j9 g' O
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than" A/ H" S6 w. R% V4 }. a
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed3 S1 [! n4 ?4 _4 ~7 T/ D5 I) ]
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
; u- H, p" y) i vindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower9 s! g# A/ r& @% R8 t2 P, p7 t
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than1 M& ~; `, U1 A0 E3 U: ~
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was* E1 ?: Q2 r9 e/ {& X
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then2 Q& B6 ?% Q* p, S/ C' L
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
8 N+ s8 R% a& p/ Z$ tproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other4 u/ `0 h9 ?3 N2 L( \) U/ e5 B
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
{9 S* D) u3 r8 X% L! v6 K% K" {teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the3 N% E* ]& c% O, H
Callaway report.
: p" s5 z9 v& N% G) S1 c& FThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more" l- t5 }5 C6 E2 ~/ O: S
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details$ g% z. @8 {$ q) n' @" L
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description8 h1 c+ h' o9 {: C5 F
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
) x: r6 y# r3 q% fbetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the, [+ z( c0 d; { B
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had+ ?$ V, H/ f" H6 b( W& g: p
publicly voiced different opinions.
) f: t# b, u$ V JYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
, n. [7 A' l6 U' z- ofrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
; L+ M$ c- v, C) N) E2 X' pNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent/ D0 U: r; ~& a9 `3 B7 l! _1 E# w
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
/ S; P W, B% D5 t# U4 l! A8 m- f, Byou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
7 J' Z( }. N8 ^- \- tof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.* Y$ x. Q& @% l- C" m' _) O8 p# G
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
9 u9 |% g* J4 m! h; T# \that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They4 t8 H9 i$ f" l* e
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as. A/ f0 c$ ]6 _$ o! B" b
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that# D4 `: S# R- ]* |& a' k
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
5 v2 a& C9 |- h" N' H" rsupported by facts neglected by Callaway.
( i( F }' O8 \One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
+ A) u- k5 i/ G# l5 z, @many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the! O& a. m: D1 V6 B& M
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
" y. E0 Y6 k. c* _$ E(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she$ G4 H6 d5 r, j: I S
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
8 T' \: n8 G% n3 WThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science, i$ X6 ^$ P7 {3 |7 [ ?
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
- c) N: S) j6 \1 v7 i/ yDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.1 Z5 [9 M. I$ Z/ P/ V8 w9 j, T N1 t
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
. e2 }; i% R5 s: {4 Lobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
1 x' g/ A8 l; w1 A9 W* {; i$ [what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
- k% M$ m+ o3 `$ P& R" _repair the damage caused by your news reporters.
% z* Y5 d( g" i6 ]+ TThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
4 Y7 n: R0 F5 k$ ishow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced. o9 T" E- m- s3 N8 j& \ J. S
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
9 i' R: r" F' v! \0 I5 F0 pfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that5 I0 ^3 o: S7 i: G/ _2 H, [7 s
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”2 r; \: z4 S" G) H$ J5 { A! G% F
about British supremacy. @$ e1 R; y4 C2 @
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
- u& R% Y& w( z( J* a5 s8 z; u( |- uunsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more/ {8 z0 b) d/ s. o; ^% j, W/ {
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
9 V d# V& o+ |% e0 c4 gour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
3 t) R7 m4 Y9 mOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases., |( O1 X2 D5 N# `' v, }* n! a- Y
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of1 s4 Z$ x+ X% D+ l8 ?: c0 ^* ^
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
2 @4 b4 U) t6 k/ dbefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,8 c, S# E4 Z: o H9 _5 n! M4 b. a
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
5 [$ s- Z) V9 n( o9 @' a* w& E8 [7 qpublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like. {# T+ \9 v1 D$ @" f
Nature.
9 g4 M( B. o5 \0 J& ]2 o2 cI hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance% C- ^4 |; F; G$ B4 Q$ M6 W9 D# f7 n
the Callaway report.) w& M3 h, [, l9 i2 Y2 x
8 S1 h0 }: i+ X' x
Yi5 |& z4 j6 u$ J! V! R6 g7 H7 E
* B" W7 B( r$ G4 S
Yi Rao, Ph.D.
3 t' Z6 {- W; |; r' KProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences! Y# V/ Y4 Z" d. ~# e$ t
Beijing, China" O9 A/ g; D% X1 M: C0 R) n" I
|
|