 鲜花( 5)  鸡蛋( 6)
|
本帖最后由 bigsnail 于 2012-8-4 10:50 编辑 4 T0 I( ?+ p8 w* ^$ O7 y7 R& N% I" E% D
+ S- ?6 m3 `/ P, o8 h饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。( Z% N6 h2 h m# W, Y8 y/ t, _& 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。# g, t$ Y# [/ ~0 x" q5 `
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。6 V0 U! F Z- ^/ N9 y' m
* N. {& l) e) J4 `% mhttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
. h. R5 C" d/ @, Z5 V( Y) J" B2 K. E8 w$ k7 N, p2 z
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道 精选
t& M* G9 x7 e' a3 g: H& @- G
; j' A5 b/ G$ N) l英文原信附后,大意如下:" O6 e& B: r% G* j- f6 Y
! |3 Q" F* y, {% F4 `( N, q+ _8 H! |斐尔,; @/ v! p1 P# K! M: Y8 ?
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" t: }! V# ^4 d( L" v" \+ L8 w
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。* u/ U1 L3 N& l/ b2 N
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5 P% ^" Y O! o! v" U( x9 p
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
. S1 E+ S4 x1 A! R! V" C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。
: M1 R6 E" ~/ ^1 j r7 P$ w+ H 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 P# C7 j1 K0 n9 D, t& q% J6 m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4 g6 @5 |2 @- M
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$ h8 E6 i8 a, q, Z m7 b# F2 x
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 g1 S/ v" h8 n 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 S% [( h" t3 `+ ~/ ]% 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
2 @, ?& h4 s* i, X”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。; [, s) j1 y- o8 U
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+ b I$ L* n- |$ H/ T
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+ H/ L4 o# D# _
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。6 F! U- L- Y2 ]+ m0 r3 K
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
/ i$ ?/ V: _3 c% ~ S% U2011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
; @& l& O. a6 B" _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# I3 k2 W& m; _; H, n# 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& K+ H0 [$ y8 Q4 e4 Q7 T8 @6 a6 V
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 K' ]0 _9 T- z; O8 I; u
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
. m) y5 I( W* j2 ~4 F0 R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
! o0 Z; a2 r+ z$ Q% Y。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
( |7 w5 e# H4 F2 i* f8 e2 S录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。; D, M/ B$ F' I0 y4 R' 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! F/ f$ Z$ ]6 d* d l! H
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
9 o, a0 N- ?& X) r6 {# EWikipedia。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6 L6 m; O; Q; P! G$ H
同意见的专家。% I6 k$ s' [3 o( z! ^
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
- k a# O* q6 n& v' `. V, ~+ M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
3 s% N5 h' A2 N5 u. Y2 |3 B# S0 h9 u3 o, B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
3 U% b6 N5 s5 j9 y2 @《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
( n9 P! f i( l6 V$ @ g5 hCallaway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)( T$ g5 P; x: u$ [: x: N
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# m' W, k- p& f6 X1 D/ s
《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& c# S9 Z' i. m; l/ x' |0 }
这些被Callaway忽略。
+ T# M0 t) o r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
% a% W$ ^7 I, [1 h- T) F4 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
+ b4 X- I: ^) A$ h5 z3 u教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
6 n3 B8 q6 M1 Q9 k |; E7 u# d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
- B: K$ B) W! c% x( K5 v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0 r, d& `, o7 M# K0 A
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) z( Q( C" I2 A, U: W* ^: Q
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。
1 Q7 ?+ }# ~' P" t( c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
% [5 e3 B) }$ e: p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( p* T+ g) v' I1 m3 H5 L1 d
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0 N: v1 f+ l+ K3 j( G+ ^& E
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。. r; d7 f0 b5 X$ z
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4 ?+ N+ ]) w4 I l% ]0 t/ Y# Q
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& V6 b/ u4 r1 Z( U2 k8 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* W/ P6 r) B4 G& t9 W) L# \
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: R* b8 u q- W! P6 J
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
$ Y0 R# d) d l+ ?而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
0 k+ C. s/ J+ f: S我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。 Z* w, w; }( `3 `8 h- L
2 I7 ~" K0 |8 n8 m" J9 S" R毅
) r8 K$ c- x1 [3 k6 T3 P北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
; ]( }& w( G3 ~2 ^9 P5 L& A4 Z+ k7 u" _) i
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结. o* w: o2 q- h0 d4 e$ b
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email' R: A4 k# |: t5 r8 {, Z
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见9 M) Y F7 E8 E; D1 G
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
' w9 E4 d0 s. L2 M- t; u' t, i7 V4 P7 q/ V: ~* X7 a# f
/ Y4 m# x' R' O" Q( j! G1 w: G, e( [; H2 x! U1 ?0 d( t4 B
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)9 N5 M- I! _' b& ~8 T2 u9 |" q
Dear Phil,
) ?3 f0 i& |5 `8 U7 F$ g% z6 S- \ You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s# ^9 }/ r# o0 F. N1 R
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20& J; N, M6 M" N# t' s
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
1 U) k, _7 x/ B1 c1 H# Fyou.
0 W2 {0 q, r+ \6 }2 Z+ h If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
- O( A6 k: |# V3 l$ m7 T7 G3 Bbrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
! U* z$ ]1 b. K* oreaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the7 f1 D0 j0 c$ x4 g% G
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature- ?$ t- @4 |4 w. v6 N3 j1 u2 c) x3 K
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more' _) \" e4 K1 P3 K4 Y
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news1 l4 b5 q$ b9 \) J( R
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
# m8 {3 U0 B- q The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
+ @6 m8 _9 m$ S# fworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a' w& O( q3 z1 F4 g t
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
1 |: L+ o! G( S" S, s8 m$ Nthat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
0 l' t# p, F# O3 t/ `- ~did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping* d3 x# |- H* K) p
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal% s* {- I, W) ^# }& ?5 I( ^
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,: \/ e" L) ]/ Y5 q& u
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
" F1 i' d1 p; k7 R/ ato cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news! j. X& \! C# r6 }% w" }3 Y1 v
reporting.
/ X4 o, R6 t& [) g1 L1 S1 E I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
8 j& A2 B/ T( _already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
1 B( Z- P& o5 ]( zchanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
( b3 ]% x: T( k+ Z8 ?7 o# esports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A9 l4 u4 v; j6 j( F
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
[' K! J, Z7 j& M: h The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
% b' }0 x% y3 W$ lmore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds' v9 g& b P& S
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
1 C- ^. P+ {) }4 H2 I" X& bmeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same: K$ e% U* q) E) v& J, k q
event for men, with the second fastest record.
( A G6 B! ~1 j1 V, v; f( a) x! p The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye' z7 z+ T% s" T5 k
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
" B' p3 W% K4 z1 Q( R) @8 S* h4 i4 wyear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record, y- c+ I- [8 o0 I
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
! S y, y7 E7 R5 m) bmeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
0 k/ Z$ B! @* ~) mfor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
- U8 P- z( ~+ M$ o' E) ALochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed8 L Y+ ~* S3 X" j
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the" \) O# g6 Q: `, J8 e; i. y0 [
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
/ I$ U' f7 x) h6 ?* l3 [than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than! e7 _" P- A# k- q7 p9 x: N$ r
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
9 X5 X h7 U' qher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then; m( z! F% T* E9 h& q6 A" f! `
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “/ r) e V0 r* v5 @( k9 X. p
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
) y9 z9 _; |+ J4 c; }( Q Lswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
, _0 V7 w \' Uteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
, W* \; ^3 C- v6 u: y' r' C. HCallaway report.: s( I( o) `2 r% G+ L8 a% ~
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more. |7 p8 U/ ~! s5 a
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details9 c! ~, h8 f/ F
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
# i. T) z/ J6 x! ^6 K. k0 q% F0 qof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
* K2 Q9 [% x) E% u! J6 P% R# _: Fbetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
2 K$ ~" T$ H! K- p6 J; ]2 aWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
A* ]+ M# f5 ypublicly voiced different opinions." K5 u1 Z; X3 R& C8 u# u
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
G/ H, A& T3 i4 _8 i! U* [9 Vfrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
" k7 i0 \& s" ]9 TNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent' F7 |7 f0 \) u- N% O; @
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds$ ^% U. V1 c3 b* @/ K; L
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy2 _; A! h4 j$ T+ `
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
, l9 F/ f2 n( q$ x3 @There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think6 e% ~5 {+ L2 X: f. z
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
% I y- x" P4 Y8 rhave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
' b4 H( S5 x' p2 U% T6 I8 u) v: EAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
; ^2 B/ Q9 r9 h5 ?the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
% K7 g4 Y' z% S+ k0 T: Z# w; @8 Osupported by facts neglected by Callaway.
' q3 D: J' z! ?( e0 r4 O% tOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that, g* y8 G+ u. E' C7 L
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
% ]' u' n3 [6 M' }Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
6 H3 v: c* S$ [3 l/ N$ P(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
}, I. F i% q6 a: k6 Kand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
% w3 Y; n8 f) E uThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science
- e, n4 y9 |" ^7 Qand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and3 G7 y$ G9 z( ^5 U: }
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
* P! U! {/ T2 R9 L8 UNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
9 s2 n9 G9 L! _9 F6 ?* ]objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
# L' H3 d+ K* Uwhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to. s* w% D/ c& a# G! z; r
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.& w0 O, G/ W6 k; _3 j- m
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not: ?, Z5 o" i2 D# Q
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced, Q8 v% \+ D: W: U/ r F
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather5 t. f C, A6 @
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that8 W6 L- z4 X k
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”! J' W3 d U$ s, d+ P
about British supremacy.
3 E+ P0 I7 o5 O4 F* EThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many+ }$ I+ G5 R, P' A
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
9 J- a) B) i' |1 ~! j, _8 [Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
" G7 u* j4 C' K0 u ]7 Aour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
3 T8 f4 x' T4 h* D) F6 T- UOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
) c( E) U' r+ q3 v- Z# nYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of; B& A7 q) |& V6 K( h$ ?0 t
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
% u1 G& Y; I {$ Xbefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,6 G4 `1 S/ w5 e$ i8 M( ]8 h
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
% J/ W8 r% c4 p- _& e9 b& A2 wpublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
, L4 W8 J9 Q: UNature.- V! b: C3 s3 v/ o
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
! D; k3 E$ J2 d5 P$ Nthe Callaway report.
) \" w5 j6 }% w0 I1 q5 ]! T6 o6 o% `
Yi( [; K9 c. o7 P+ A, W
; b; r2 D( G7 S& o0 U, ` q; F$ i
Yi Rao, Ph.D.7 r' ~) o( d6 Z0 k0 l
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences" l6 _% J9 T1 w9 W6 h; N
Beijing, China% O7 \& e0 V7 u0 f6 N" g- d2 k
|
|