 鲜花( 5)  鸡蛋( 6)
|
本帖最后由 bigsnail 于 2012-8-4 10:50 编辑 9 J$ m/ H/ Z3 ?4 \% W. v
; C# L& H5 ?( n饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
3 }& I4 ^* f; s, z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。$ P6 a0 |/ y! D; ~" s7 k
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。2 B) ?+ m8 J% {" S6 L0 n: E
$ T1 l! x8 q9 }3 p% R0 t+ B, X
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
3 ^. c2 [' |. C1 e( y$ p7 G
: I! \: [3 j% a l' m2 R1 F! a致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道 精选' I% _3 y4 ~1 V7 _6 W1 f+ P4 {. ]% [
5 h( q3 O% L5 ?8 }' j8 x2 ?
英文原信附后,大意如下:) \$ X2 T: k b0 h; b
5 m/ [) L6 @$ E: y6 O% q1 J8 m5 e: G斐尔,
# L; ?: R9 w3 ~+ @% c3 L( y 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
# q X: v! k, K6 s* L+ }' n. kemail的人里面小部分也给我来信。
\8 e9 [+ A' X1 E# { 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
# f9 p; O% @, W9 C; d2 i; h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
. H6 r- A: Y7 R/ A, i' b0 }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。- u# B$ R& d2 [( U' f& B1 P- m
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7 d& O4 B! n3 B4 I3 N
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
. l! S: h3 x* D+ {1 y7 S2 b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$ P J* F( Y' B7 w, @
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 }6 _2 b: W, @: y 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
4 e5 x8 G4 a5 g6 A3 l4 t5 n) A6 u- G,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' i2 ^* v" J9 k/ G9 ~
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。, x3 n* h% p: \' i! @
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% q0 k( m. ^! ]9 `# P
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- o$ K7 H5 l9 z6 f+ P2 w7 B4 ?' C
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。8 G0 E+ n4 V2 X3 ?7 Z
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! h7 ^+ a# Z, {
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
2 U( k2 w+ N' Y% v( l1 w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
) o' B, u" n% p9 |: O) t/ a# x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) ]" q) X- N4 k" n
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 q# ^/ K% n* u& S4 @, L" A
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 M# G3 Q. c: t: j" _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% G7 X6 z- _8 ~2 |/ S
。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* m9 u& n8 ]# b9 A% |$ \$ F. Y0 N
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
; t5 _& v( @$ U) c% p& F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
# z, F0 _0 m# n# V1》,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
- i# R+ t, x0 K/ C! 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
" ^, K% t1 D; a& |2 w# w同意见的专家。
' B i& X" f( }& j# N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
+ Z, j% R& N l: X, H4 g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) ?9 v+ B' H2 |, n6 c0 l- R, {. C
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5 O+ I6 v4 A8 z H" S
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
) J' U* R9 v6 }% i; |! {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)
4 G2 x# F, @, W$ }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- t' H+ d3 c2 B ^2 K7 v
《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9 M- i+ M4 U) L0 [: ?! l1 N& E
这些被Callaway忽略。8 m q& n& D6 ^6 J% r, q# u7 t
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
4 Y2 x) K# s# j9 c7 t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, z- N4 h$ Z! G- O8 y
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
( b' Z& Q! ^% N- C9 K6 u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, } P6 U' R& ?' c* N8 B; 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
/ P* |$ X! g7 }2 ]. A* S/ k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$ {# }# V. V2 k* L0 [
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。
0 n2 q s8 E3 f, f, b ^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
3 [9 V9 z* w: S% w/ K3 o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
$ E& R; @$ M+ s2 {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
# n4 T# T+ z; @”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
9 k0 J& W( [( I3 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
/ ~5 o4 x2 Y+ b+ X; a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
' D. E4 e0 u% 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8 p/ G& \4 G2 Z6 J9 Z) \( w* P% n
的年轻人,本该为自己职业生涯的成就而庆贺。当已知她通过了奥运会赛前、赛中多次* _7 r4 n" A: c, k& Y
测试,而毫无证据指责她的时候,却有很多媒体,特别是《自然》这样的刊物,的渲染
3 o) \5 s8 X* P而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。, V: q3 Z- t$ q0 W
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
' Y! o2 [# v: C m U4 j* A) N- B- ^4 p+ E( A6 J5 c* k
毅7 J$ z5 J, [1 P @; Z4 ~
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅& `8 I9 I8 {$ i. S
! x+ ]$ R1 K" v% ?0 [, I% b附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
* }7 C% `: l; O' g3 ~附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email; r4 e/ p% c3 e6 x; E5 Q& X, T
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见2 O8 ~5 C/ N" Q& @4 c' r9 x
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见. q+ Y) P+ E. W0 v
: H/ ~+ h8 D+ u6 m/ @9 ^0 V9 g$ \
3 M8 _5 K( x) o2 q! |: O) D2 y4 I
' O$ ?% B6 Y: ~, N6 _
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送); k: B( h! D$ q- U
Dear Phil,2 f, s# [. g+ h1 |4 v8 ?! o# x
You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s7 B2 @8 [) Q" N# @: I: G' K
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20% E. c% F0 J) l. a8 {( {
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed9 l- i }6 T. S
you.4 K5 I/ M2 }( S
If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
4 W i' b7 N6 Tbrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese2 F+ I1 i6 m& ?$ `
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
5 h7 f% {7 \; l: [) mworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
f! `" ~" c9 u( n# vpublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more/ g1 {( \ s, [( O( S# Y
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news- A( r4 n+ b& K- U
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would., z4 z2 M3 d. K a1 x) K
The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
" Z/ [# r3 S$ eworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a8 q \% y3 {4 s
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
4 e/ F' @" \) x3 b6 a$ n0 a3 Ithat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway4 P* p! Z8 I' t- D4 E& R+ ~, }7 F
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
) X& q0 ]7 m/ G& n! ~3 g8 Pexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
?7 h& ^; c: @. _ a. kstandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
4 o( ]( [; x& t' ]0 p3 `and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone( u) T' ~" ^% @8 X4 F- m9 H0 k6 x
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news1 r% g+ E/ G) v
reporting.$ }% }( r: B7 g6 }7 x% y
I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have9 p9 m) u# W+ H/ u/ }. |
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
1 L' v) M5 t* H/ [0 m9 j1 Y/ kchanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
0 J5 p% L, p4 tsports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A( i9 z+ S4 G# K
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts. u/ ?$ K: W# {9 D8 q
The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem; s$ @. I7 M: l, V4 ]; i
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds- t- i* I0 q+ u% A* m
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50: X J1 l N$ ]' L
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
! k+ I V# S) [ j- V% v& V: u) a9 A! yevent for men, with the second fastest record.- I* R7 P, e) J, I$ p
The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye/ m: x/ L8 C# n2 N6 c t
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 161 G; b# C7 W& O$ R% G. _ ?
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record( i" z2 Q: w3 V1 L
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 4006 K( s: `4 q4 U
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
# h0 T9 \% T5 c# Vfor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
5 p" Y. m; [7 b, ?6 dLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
& F: U3 @! B* g6 G$ F( \( \2 r- N+ Ibehind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
0 P& R: k% b a g' A4 \individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower! r6 t* C3 c; y/ A7 @! l+ \8 r/ @# S
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than# |9 }$ ]( {' n6 M8 @5 x
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was0 k+ R5 J* H! R- Y7 {' \0 W" H
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then( X1 k' O+ Q& b$ I/ d5 j& ]9 {. b U( i
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
, S+ T) I! Q& u- Eproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
5 K8 Z" W1 j( Fswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the0 Q& P% Q% I, v
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
B: t3 e1 P" ?* \4 n5 R _4 sCallaway report.5 f- ~* G" i# Y. S9 ?2 ^
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more, Q8 @+ T! `; g% t$ K
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
0 e0 E5 _$ a+ k' bhere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
& f& O/ V6 d r$ mof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been* A$ X' P& V. h8 y s0 v# W
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
' X1 L* ^0 u- p3 QWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
; x! B7 P0 w4 W9 }& lpublicly voiced different opinions.3 C$ B0 Q+ F3 R5 z0 Z Q8 C
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD! Z- F9 J& i4 S* z2 l6 v0 H# q! x8 f
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
, O4 h8 j$ C; F8 CNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent4 p" _ R7 f' h
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
' A& M! M/ \! a- g6 Jyou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy6 t- j- ?$ {5 i5 T# b
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
+ }8 A: X3 U2 m4 x& g- vThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
( _5 M- p: ?, G4 b, g, J6 N* ]1 ~: A ythat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
/ h1 x" p# H8 m& S: g; W6 F2 ^have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
) _5 R2 `5 d4 qAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that( l. o Y2 w3 o! x% N% y
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
- F. o9 M5 u& ]* v0 [supported by facts neglected by Callaway.
. R8 D7 R' w! _- ^; T N4 rOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that& {/ w2 @. g+ Z' M( `/ x
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the4 z+ w; @ V9 D7 e
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June2 }( }. E; Q8 H- q( K2 m8 X6 N
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
! N! c- b R! ?' v( x8 Mand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting." }: i3 V2 F8 c* k2 g- R8 U& ]. f
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science
* K' h( j6 `) f. t/ yand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
) r- A( q. m! [/ @Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.. m& g) q8 s5 f
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and+ n: L, c, I3 K
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature3 c8 H4 E* D& O# n+ u$ \
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
( n7 P0 Y! P" t# U/ Z4 `1 ]repair the damage caused by your news reporters.5 O7 `" z4 M: g# s, `9 |
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
7 g7 a3 x( R2 l# j9 p, rshow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced/ i1 g2 f B5 o" d! n1 F
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
2 U @8 q$ V& F# Kfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
- h' y3 e: i0 T* D8 W) `4 d; Othis report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
- \1 z9 z6 r4 |; J0 ~& ?8 m& Pabout British supremacy." F' O) @8 F/ y* g6 m0 b3 f
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many0 L, Q* f- I) I, A& G! a
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more3 L6 `; K6 w7 d# G
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by. u& y: K* w( A" _( o+ v9 L
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London+ ]7 m) @1 _4 E$ P
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.4 L; n0 y" q U) X5 b
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of/ z$ p; |6 b$ s3 w8 I6 S
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
# W5 T; h9 O o# l0 m& tbefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
- v2 f$ P" M" ]it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
9 }5 L. V2 s+ |; \publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
7 }# I8 Y" B0 F" c/ c' U1 jNature.+ p: ` d$ |1 I
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
! N, j5 f* p: [: Y% B. Y [6 Ythe Callaway report.
/ G% s2 e2 t8 h7 j6 Y h- b
" y) ]5 H$ a, e2 l/ kYi
0 \' C( g7 p3 p& z* i4 a0 N2 o+ U& S- i& q# J% }( b% C
Yi Rao, Ph.D.3 Y' N* T9 v# V3 n+ b, [2 ?
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences ~( _/ `, l0 ~8 |
Beijing, China
3 x; ~7 V. A# r" S |
|