 鲜花( 5)  鸡蛋( 6)
|
本帖最后由 bigsnail 于 2012-8-4 10:50 编辑 ; R, K# y, V# e$ B8 z
$ M' z- S8 Y8 { D) r" h
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。' ~( g7 Y7 ?* G+ I- y
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。
" C/ j% P F+ I! `5 q. C( y _0 G总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。! L# x$ A# S4 r. |4 N, k
( c7 [: p# u( R- [
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
5 c2 L e# s2 D9 f: e9 Q/ b) t+ {6 i, s7 ~* L+ f
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道 精选
2 d- X- Q7 |1 `" |2 e5 I/ }. B. b' Y1 H
英文原信附后,大意如下:1 l& g* @ i y
' c! i8 G& o& ^+ _ ?4 I' L. V, A斐尔,
6 R2 u6 C# E W2 O8 y" D7 `0 |) b! N 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' i% C T8 C0 E' x
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。1 \, B% N2 \ D, E4 _, v
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9 Q# }2 S$ a' j1 t
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1 g) V, F+ _1 W; S" |1 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。# w, P6 p: z" a% P8 l3 C7 N
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+ W6 h- [( @- R. B5 l* 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
5 x; a' h- O! U% x! k. d7 }+ 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
2 F5 ]+ i* o. k! _2 O) X, \% 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。
' b. H! P0 ]! | f% x w& u5 @0 q 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9 P5 Z+ y6 [. C* 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
1 J" `( B2 n8 [”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
q$ q8 e* [; t+ 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' r0 b6 ] |- q
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
, r+ U3 |; X- u5 U; Y7 [, W j0 f,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
. N3 P2 p; X' f4 D' N. D0 v 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
8 s4 @8 Y% C# Z0 m( J, h2011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
3 { y7 l; O5 g& c4 V0 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$ ^& P5 M3 @) w" U
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
* {' A: J& U! O% g: n300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、六5 K2 f6 c) _$ W) S
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! Z! ?. K, i, S
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+ c, [- M4 _, Q# d
。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' B# d4 D. I6 ^& _
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。% i3 t& A+ {8 Z* S% \
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5 A- u& ]8 w( _% F
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
5 t4 e2 d* F7 W1 |- i" k/ VWikipedia。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
! c- @2 ], Z: J* H4 Y同意见的专家。2 h0 X Y) @0 y
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 T: T0 {* \( ^
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) H: J" B5 T ? h; r+ X" r$ L1 C. D
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
, Q. z+ c2 B5 j6 G- d7 h2 K《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。9 l V, X, n# Z2 u& T/ V
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)2 L; H2 x% f& F* z
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9 S+ P2 S- A* l$ W9 n
《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
. K/ B4 W2 M3 O- c0 t1 w这些被Callaway忽略。
/ q" u' l2 r* o6 S* v7 R' ^; Q8 m( H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- g# H `# _ m: m' A
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) n4 ?5 m0 u9 M
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
0 d/ O7 K* o" \& T, z. m; c- v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3 o! _4 A. F- l, c
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; d. T# r- C5 j; m
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
# y" @) t2 H% U9 k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。! f* l- j2 h$ o" m2 Y0 N9 d
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4 z2 t' g7 ?: 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
. ?# B4 {6 j: P7 C7 e c" P0 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
- A9 k( A2 p; p- H”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
. n" i: G& F+ D" R7 m$ f7 D% 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
/ C( c6 I. j% U% y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
) \! A& K0 O" ?% ^" s1 b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
! [9 |2 i o( u1 g6 B6 a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 E! }; V- x" i! a/ W t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
8 }$ E. u5 F/ c4 ?. p而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
. I0 p, F6 a% K1 q* }6 G3 l2 U我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
( j8 |. N5 k( I( Y
" V4 F2 L' |0 E' {/ a8 f ]毅
6 v" V t/ T7 k; {北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅6 T- N1 B6 [& M+ y
6 k, R9 N; { w- Z5 }附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
8 G3 M/ W9 x) P- n9 }+ W. c. G: l附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
: J! S# `* a1 o7 J2 k附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
; \# P$ K& k/ \附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见: H, e7 _: S8 x4 z' a9 L. S
$ p2 m$ Z7 n: |+ A
8 ]7 j9 j4 t( \5 l7 q7 g1 s9 t
" A1 C5 {+ H- m
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
7 X# Y3 n4 A9 pDear Phil,( E# K7 g3 B1 i; A7 L) w3 w0 d
You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
+ j5 M9 k; O* y% A7 N8 X% @report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
' g+ ?/ c: C @! L( Ihours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
" y% l y8 g; ^2 L! j4 ?: a- |0 kyou.8 l0 K& ^* C0 r8 T
If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have0 v/ v4 t& ^6 L' n+ ~, W
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese% d' ^; T0 d, Z: q* w: u
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the) t S( F2 E- p! n+ v; R
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature5 Y8 A, ^$ G& z- f
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
. n6 i/ h; L) t; B0 H+ Dseriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news5 L0 n3 F. `/ q! j
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.7 u( v' r1 y2 Z$ l7 W! H# B4 W
The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the J0 N" l7 M4 Z J9 i
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a1 W6 V# K* Q5 c
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
1 l8 V3 q5 E5 a8 W8 Othat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
- z& U5 D: p8 e* W' Pdid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping' F; W0 L! z) R' u2 u
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
9 K2 ~5 r1 g4 u Tstandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
: M5 b9 m. f; S" pand could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone# {5 r& ^% c4 m& Z4 o6 q! A; Y, ~
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news. x( s+ B3 K6 t
reporting./ ]. o. Z9 Z; c
I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
& ]) h; X: v* j7 Aalready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
& t. b; K9 O" @ w$ B$ o2 G8 \- s6 Rchanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
! v) J3 `% K f& l7 _7 D( Csports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A P8 t6 ?# P( z* H9 [" ]5 x
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
* W; N2 `. s' w. | The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
6 k8 x6 [- W4 nmore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
; L- U! B! W% H% yfaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50) g/ H7 J8 ]3 Y/ p5 h
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
/ B$ }- n+ M# D7 h7 X! G' {- |# q: }: mevent for men, with the second fastest record.6 W- R: D: v; R0 {/ F+ y, z% W
The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye/ n$ P0 l1 f7 f; B( D5 ~
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
' ~1 r6 H5 r- a" Z/ {( Vyear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
( Q% O ^- s) f6 A. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
; O5 C7 o6 P# k1 ameters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
" e% W( |3 l' Y, B" Y. }' {& ufor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than9 s2 `5 k L! i; J& H4 N& v* b
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed) z% ~; ~2 _# A% p- J3 h9 x
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
: |& l5 w$ W% W0 qindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower& y+ G' q- S6 ~
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
$ |( d6 \4 n4 U- R _- w( Z2 J9 athose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was+ G% j( c' o; E0 W+ \7 \
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
* _1 i( m- F1 A2 The would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
& N6 }1 L. I3 S4 a0 @3 x0 `0 t0 iproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other9 C6 _% X4 }4 B+ A! c! x0 w
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
; w2 V" k* X! h& k2 P/ m, }* ?9 y6 @teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
& r5 j* E6 `/ LCallaway report.
* p( X' ?, c* P5 zThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
& ~7 C1 v: ~9 F+ @6 Punderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
; G6 H4 g% a( b1 e0 khere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description, S9 `4 R# ?3 b1 z
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
! a8 s! g$ f# ~( P K" ebetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
7 q, n/ ^: h# W9 _9 _3 ^+ x' AWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
4 Y$ i! J+ E% q% U3 @, Spublicly voiced different opinions.6 y* z0 A- K8 I, ~/ B/ Y# Q
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD6 K* v9 ^+ N0 f0 r% i5 O
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
& ~ `: \( _9 K6 X$ B) y7 X: LNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent( x. Y. ]- `$ { _% [1 F. ^ h% M a
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds9 v- }$ t+ I. V3 K% W4 x
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
/ b* _1 c& {$ h$ b& f$ e6 }of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
) w6 U Y$ R) M* f. k3 TThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think+ R% A% c9 n: t7 ^4 s
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They( j3 A) M: _3 p/ k
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
: ]+ a) q. N& m8 Q2 gAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
4 Y: I$ K, k- ^6 T! athe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
2 Z$ n. L3 C0 h& ` Hsupported by facts neglected by Callaway.
+ g% v$ d+ K, E$ D6 D) |/ NOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that2 i& j. i: ~- [: I$ F5 z1 ]
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
. f" U0 C% I' M6 ]) F- i6 kChinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June3 T6 F8 ^+ R/ W
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she: _. Q( F2 P/ r8 T. ~! i
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
! [& Y/ [ u" Z ?( f2 `The British have a good international image, partly because of your science
3 I% F9 d9 S0 _0 \( V9 A7 E, X$ Band your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
& O7 \3 V( [3 EDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
1 m6 f9 T* d- O( m+ \& v5 oNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
3 C y; [9 |& i, H/ N5 m$ Bobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature! S1 X0 k6 X* R F( l, N4 p0 ?( c
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
" I9 s$ F0 _( e' `7 M0 erepair the damage caused by your news reporters.( s3 W! Z+ q: P) b/ H' ]5 Z2 ~
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
9 w6 T- a/ o' f) s5 Q6 @show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced; r* C% \3 U! O
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
4 \9 f8 E; r# hfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that9 M" M" Q1 O7 ^' @
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
4 G' w# E9 }$ x7 a7 x babout British supremacy.
: K7 v+ v$ E7 \! VThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
# c4 P1 q1 |. f2 s: e( v5 }unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
; ~8 x+ _1 K- k: NChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by' g5 x- W8 z/ g& O- Q6 u
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
* O/ k0 M" D+ J& x9 v9 yOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
2 w* v2 }5 u% g# u+ F% l6 bYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of0 B- K7 f1 c- g! }; d7 @
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
$ @0 n, d7 `: X* N% Obefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
2 U9 A' E- x+ U9 w- L1 O7 ]; ^it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
1 q& y7 H% `- G% S) ~% kpublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
( \; k! x5 f0 p8 i0 f8 XNature.
' m2 s9 |" E* ~" e* t; `I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance8 j N3 T& L& {
the Callaway report. o$ `4 @, L( ]# q" y( a0 G
+ Q0 M, j L# k' D* |; K1 ~Yi
9 R5 N7 ~, a9 u( H
0 @0 M" K# D; y/ a9 A* F: |; AYi Rao, Ph.D.# {- o7 W# ] Q: l& m4 X! ^! M
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences" F3 d6 D0 p, j4 F2 f7 m
Beijing, China
0 t0 E. n2 ]! s1 }; U: U |
|