 |
 |
 |
| 24小時(shí)熱門版塊排行榜 |
- >論壇更新日志 (4873)
- >考研 (1845)
- >導(dǎo)師招生 (1461)
- >蟲(chóng)友互識(shí) (291)
- >文獻(xiàn)求助 (259)
- >碩博家園 (141)
- >休閑灌水 (134)
- >考博 (74)
- >招聘信息布告欄 (71)
- >基金申請(qǐng) (66)
- >博后之家 (53)
- >綠色求助(高懸賞) (36)
- >論文投稿 (31)
- >材料綜合 (23)
- >金屬 (14)
- >攻關(guān)文獻(xiàn)(高獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)) (13)
 |
 |
 |
||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| 5 | 3/1 | 返回列表 |
| 查看: 9414 | 回復(fù): 124 | |||
| 當(dāng)前只顯示滿足指定條件的回帖，點(diǎn)擊這里查看本話題的所有回帖 | |||
十送紅軍銅蟲(chóng) (正式寫(xiě)手)
|
[交流]
英文寫(xiě)作范本——饒毅致《Nature》主編的信（關(guān)于葉詩(shī)文）
|
||
|
饒毅致《自然》雜志總編的信：有關(guān)葉詩(shī)文的新聞報(bào)道 http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html 英文原信附后，大意如下： 斐爾, 你可能因Ewen Callaway對(duì)葉詩(shī)文的報(bào)道而被email狂炸，過(guò)去二十小時(shí)，給你email的人里面小部分也給我來(lái)信。 如果你奇怪《自然》非本質(zhì)部分一篇報(bào)道為何帶來(lái)這么大的反應(yīng)，你應(yīng)該高興中文讀者比世界其他讀者更看重你們的新聞報(bào)道，與科學(xué)相關(guān)的（即使關(guān)系很�。┮部赡苤赜凇都~約時(shí)報(bào)》，中文媒體報(bào)道用你們的新聞也遠(yuǎn)多于一般西方媒體用你們的新聞。 Callaway報(bào)道最好也是草率、最差是種族偏見(jiàn)：1)最初的副標(biāo)題暗示葉可能舞弊; 2)Callaway用了兩件事實(shí)說(shuō)明葉驚人地異常，而兩件都錯(cuò)了; 3)Callaway沒(méi)咨詢意見(jiàn)不同的專家，導(dǎo)致報(bào)道不平衡，低于公平報(bào)道的最低標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。所以，Callaway至少不負(fù)責(zé)任，可能太快就暗示中國(guó)運(yùn)動(dòng)員容易舞弊。他肯定沒(méi)有達(dá)到新聞報(bào)道的通常標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。 我很高興看到在我草擬此信的過(guò)程中，《自然》可能意識(shí)到原副標(biāo)題的偏見(jiàn)，將之由“成績(jī)追蹤記錄有助于抓體育舞弊者”更正為“成績(jī)追蹤記錄有助于驅(qū)散疑問(wèn)”。舞弊的前設(shè)改為疑問(wèn)。 Callaway報(bào)道用的兩個(gè)“事實(shí)”讓葉詩(shī)文看起來(lái)比真實(shí)的要更“異常”：說(shuō)她比自己在2012年7月的記錄要快7秒，說(shuō)她在最后五十米比男子冠軍Ryan Lochte還要快，而后者是男子第二快的世界紀(jì)錄。 第一個(gè)“事實(shí)”錯(cuò)了，第二個(gè)誤導(dǎo)。1)葉比自己只快5秒，而此前她的記錄創(chuàng)于2011年、不是2012年，這位16歲運(yùn)動(dòng)員用了一年而不是少于4周刷新自己。2)葉只在混合泳400米中最后自由泳一段比Lochte快，而非整個(gè)400米。Lochte在400米是世界第二快的記錄，葉在400米絲毫不能接近他（慢了二十多秒)。葉只是自由泳最強(qiáng)，而在前300米落后于好些女選手。雖然Lochte在400米很快，他在最后50米的自由泳慢于五、六位男選手。葉最后五十米自由泳也慢于那些男子。所以，葉只在她自己的強(qiáng)項(xiàng)而他的弱項(xiàng)快于Lochte。如果Callaway多做的功課，他就難以用這些“事實(shí)”來(lái)使“問(wèn)題”醒目。如果Callaway多查詢，他就能發(fā)現(xiàn)其他游泳運(yùn)動(dòng)員也曾在十幾歲發(fā)育階段顯著提高記錄。這些事實(shí)更正后，Callaway的報(bào)道就沒(méi)基礎(chǔ)。 還有好些事實(shí)，可以讓一般讀者更理解葉詩(shī)文的成績(jī)，我不在此贅述。可以參見(jiàn)《附件1》，wikipedia對(duì)葉的成績(jī)有一個(gè)相當(dāng)快而公平的描述。署名的《自然》報(bào)道應(yīng)該優(yōu)于Wikipedia。Callaway報(bào)道與Wikipedia條目的差別也顯示該記者未采訪已經(jīng)公開(kāi)提出不同意見(jiàn)的專家。 你應(yīng)該收到了王立銘博士的一封email。他在發(fā)表多篇《自然》和《自然神經(jīng)科學(xué)》的第一作者論文后，獲加州理工學(xué)院的博士，并因此得到有聲譽(yù)的獎(jiǎng)學(xué)金到伯克利加州大學(xué)做獨(dú)立的博士后。萬(wàn)一他給你的email埋在你收到的成百上千郵件中，我將其拷貝為《附件2》。他email給了我、要我看看此事。 Callaway在線報(bào)道下面有很多跟帖討論。有些學(xué)生以為有些很有道理（且有實(shí)質(zhì)內(nèi)容）的討論被刪了，他們寄給了我。我選Lai Jiang的一份為《附件3》，Zhenxi Zhang的為《附件4》。你們可以看到學(xué)生和一些更有經(jīng)歷的《自然》讀者不高興是有依據(jù)的，而這些為Callaway忽略。 英國(guó)人常忘記、而現(xiàn)代華人不易忘記，世界上很多人以為鴉片戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)是中國(guó)人賣鴉片給英國(guó)人。我自己6月份（這確是2012年）又經(jīng)歷一次，我和一位老朋友（麻省理工學(xué)院教授）在香港開(kāi)會(huì)時(shí)，發(fā)現(xiàn)她竟然也是這么認(rèn)為。 英國(guó)人的國(guó)際形象好，部分原因是你們的科學(xué)和科學(xué)家：當(dāng)全世界中學(xué)生都要從教科書(shū)學(xué)牛頓和達(dá)爾文時(shí)，英國(guó)贏得了世界的尊重。《自然》應(yīng)該以這些偉大（且客觀）的科學(xué)家建立的傳統(tǒng)和聲譽(yù)為自豪。他們其中有些曾在《自然》發(fā)表過(guò)論文，才有《自然》的今天。你們?nèi)绻扇〈胧┬迯?fù)你們的新聞?dòng)浾咴斐傻膿p害，可以加強(qiáng)你們的聲譽(yù)。 英國(guó)人從來(lái)沒(méi)因鴉片戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)對(duì)我們道歉，即使在1997年離開(kāi)香港時(shí)也未顯示絲毫悔意。而香港是英國(guó)在鴉片戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)后強(qiáng)迫我們割讓的土地。所以，記憶是猶新的，而不僅是1840年代的殘余。如果《自然》拒絕承認(rèn)此報(bào)道不公平，可能很難“驅(qū)散”英國(guó)至上的“疑問(wèn)”（借用《自然》對(duì)葉報(bào)道的詞匯）。 中國(guó)人受形象不佳的牽累。我們也知道我們還有很多感到羞恥的未解決的問(wèn)題，包括舞弊。越來(lái)越多的中國(guó)人能接受合理與平衡的批評(píng)，我們?cè)趥惗貖W運(yùn)會(huì)為我們羽毛球的問(wèn)題公開(kāi)道歉就是證據(jù)。但我們對(duì)缺依據(jù)、有偏見(jiàn)的批評(píng)還很敏感。葉詩(shī)文不過(guò)是個(gè)16歲的年輕人，本該為自己職業(yè)生涯的成就而滿心歡喜。當(dāng)已知她通過(guò)了奧運(yùn)會(huì)賽前、賽中多次測(cè)試，而毫無(wú)證據(jù)指責(zé)她的時(shí)候，還有很多媒體，特別是《自然》這樣的刊物，渲染負(fù)面輿論多于正面，當(dāng)然令人深感不平。 我希望你們能澄清記錄，發(fā)表平衡Callaway報(bào)道的意見(jiàn)。 毅 北京大學(xué)生命科學(xué)學(xué)院 神經(jīng)生物學(xué)教授 饒毅 附件1 Wikipedia對(duì)葉詩(shī)文的總結(jié) 附件2 伯克利加州大學(xué)王立明的email 附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway報(bào)道后的意見(jiàn) 附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway報(bào)道后的意見(jiàn) 原文（2012年8月4日1:57am發(fā)送） Dear Phil, You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20 hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed you. If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature has brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news pieces much more than the regular Western news media would. The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway did not check with experts whose opinions did not support the doping explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible, and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news reporting. I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A presumption of cheating has changed to doubts. The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50 meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same event for men, with the second fastest record. The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16 year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400 meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters, for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the Callaway report. There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had publicly voiced different opinions. You should have received an email from Dr. Liming Wang, who obtained a PhD from Caltech after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent postdoc at Berkeley. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue. There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was supported by facts neglected by Callaway. One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the Chinese sold opium to the British. I personally experienced this in June (2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting. The British have a good international image, partly because of your science and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world. Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to repair the damage caused by your news reporters. The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts” about British supremacy. The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases. Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her, it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like Nature. I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance the Callaway report. Yi Yi Rao, Ph.D. Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences Beijing, China [ Last edited by 十送紅軍 on 2012-8-4 at 21:04 ] |
回復(fù)此樓» 本帖已獲得的紅花（最新10朵）
tianjinzxl» 猜你喜歡
275學(xué)碩081000服從調(diào)劑到其他專業(yè)，保不住本專業(yè)了
已經(jīng)有8人回復(fù)
-
085600，320分求調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有4人回復(fù)
-
071000生物學(xué)調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有4人回復(fù)
-
材料與化工306分找調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有3人回復(fù)
-
一志愿北京科技材料科學(xué)與工程288分，求調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有10人回復(fù)
-
一志愿同濟(jì)大學(xué)323分（080500）求調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有6人回復(fù)
-
一志愿085600中科院寧波所276分求調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有26人回復(fù)
-
材料專碩322分
已經(jīng)有7人回復(fù)
-
材料調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有4人回復(fù)
-
294分080500材料科學(xué)與工程求調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有17人回復(fù)
» 搶金幣啦！回帖就可以得到:
-
齊齊哈爾大學(xué)材料科學(xué)與工程學(xué)院 誠(chéng)招調(diào)劑生
+1/980
-
上海海洋大學(xué)與中國(guó)水產(chǎn)科學(xué)研究院聯(lián)培 學(xué)術(shù)型研究生 水產(chǎn) (A+學(xué)科）有調(diào)劑名額
+2/148
-
江蘇大學(xué)，環(huán)境科學(xué)/環(huán)境工程專業(yè)，調(diào)劑
+1/87
-
濟(jì)南大學(xué)前沿交叉科學(xué)研究院招收2026級(jí)調(diào)劑生（化學(xué)工程085602）
+1/86
-
2026年武漢紡織大學(xué)國(guó)家杰青課題組招收調(diào)劑化學(xué) 生物 醫(yī)學(xué) 食品 環(huán)境研究生
+1/84
-
廣西大學(xué)農(nóng)學(xué)院碩士研究生調(diào)劑（報(bào)考專業(yè)09開(kāi)頭）
+2/68
-
大連海事大學(xué)輪機(jī)工程學(xué)院尚有少量調(diào)劑名額，如有興趣的同學(xué)可以聯(lián)系。
+2/56
-
某211招收光學(xué)工程 儀器科學(xué)與技術(shù) tiaoji 研究生 若干名�。�！
+1/53
-
山東青島-導(dǎo)師招生
+1/52
-
南通大學(xué)國(guó)家級(jí)人才團(tuán)隊(duì)招收藥學(xué)、衛(wèi)生檢驗(yàn)、醫(yī)學(xué)檢驗(yàn)、基礎(chǔ)醫(yī)學(xué)相關(guān)方向調(diào)劑研究生
+1/37
-
食品科學(xué)與工程、生物與醫(yī)藥、食品營(yíng)養(yǎng)接受調(diào)劑
+1/35
-
電力全國(guó)重點(diǎn)實(shí)驗(yàn)室雙一流A類長(zhǎng)江學(xué)者團(tuán)隊(duì)招2026年全日制博士1名（4月3日截止）
+1/10
-
西安工程大學(xué)環(huán)境與化學(xué)工程學(xué)院能源環(huán)境催化與先進(jìn)材料課題組招生
+1/9
-
哈爾濱工業(yè)大學(xué)航天學(xué)院復(fù)合材料與結(jié)構(gòu)研究所招碩士生
+1/6
-
大灣區(qū)大學(xué)李軍課題組招收生物信息學(xué)、人工智能方向博士后
+1/4
-
齊齊哈爾大學(xué)李莉課題組誠(chéng)招2026級(jí)考研調(diào)劑生（學(xué)碩和專碩）
+1/3
-
【水文、水質(zhì)模擬】香港科技大學(xué)（廣州）博士后招聘
+1/2
-
上海應(yīng)用技術(shù)大學(xué)化工院招收調(diào)劑
+1/2
-
【博士招生】廣東工業(yè)大學(xué)國(guó)家優(yōu)青課題組招收2026年博士生（環(huán)境/化學(xué)/材料/微生物）
+1/2
-
長(zhǎng)江師范學(xué)院化學(xué)工程方向接收大量調(diào)劑考生
+1/1
101樓2012-08-05 00:36:48
leiws
至尊木蟲(chóng) (職業(yè)作家)
- 應(yīng)助: 327 (大學(xué)生)
- 金幣: 20409
- 帖子: 3922
- 在線: 2137.9小時(shí)
- 蟲(chóng)號(hào): 832300
8樓2012-08-04 14:36:22
vivien8803
木蟲(chóng) (正式寫(xiě)手)
- 應(yīng)助: 22 (小學(xué)生)
- 金幣: 2193
- 帖子: 537
- 在線: 97.5小時(shí)
- 蟲(chóng)號(hào): 940996
10樓2012-08-04 14:37:36
xwxfat
木蟲(chóng) (正式寫(xiě)手)
- 應(yīng)助: 14 (小學(xué)生)
- 金幣: 7384.1
- 帖子: 346
- 在線: 590.5小時(shí)
- 蟲(chóng)號(hào): 1337246
12樓2012-08-04 14:43:26
簡(jiǎn)單回復(fù)
2012-08-04 14:34
回復(fù)
十送紅軍(金幣+1): 謝謝參與
頂 
| 最具人氣熱帖推薦 [查看全部] | 作者 | 回/看 | 最后發(fā)表 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
[考研] 346求調(diào)劑 +3 | 鄭誠(chéng)樂(lè) 2026-04-02 | 3/150 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
[考研] 能源動(dòng)力 調(diào)劑 +3 | 不破不立0 2026-04-02 | 3/150 |
|
|
|
[考研] 314求調(diào)劑 +11 | 1xiaojun23 2026-03-31 | 12/600 |
|
|
|
[考研] 309求調(diào)劑 +7 | 呆菇不是戴夫 2026-04-02 | 7/350 |
|
|
|
[考研] 一志愿廈門大學(xué)材料工程專碩354找調(diào)劑�。�！ +7 | 貝唄鋇鋇 2026-03-30 | 7/350 |
|
|
|
[考研] 一志愿南師大0703化學(xué) 275求調(diào)劑 +6 | Ripcord上岸 2026-03-27 | 6/300 |
|
|
|
[考研] 生物學(xué)308分求調(diào)劑（一志愿華東師大） +5 | 相信必會(huì)光芒萬(wàn)?/a> 2026-03-31 | 6/300 |
|
|
|
[考研] 321求調(diào)劑 +9 | y-yh 2026-04-01 | 10/500 |
|
|
|
[考研] 求調(diào)劑，一志愿 南京航空航天大學(xué) ，080500材料科學(xué)與工程學(xué)碩，總分289分 +11 | @taotao 2026-03-29 | 11/550 |
|
|
|
[考研] 一志愿北京科技，085601總分305求調(diào)劑 +9 | 半生瓜！ 2026-04-01 | 11/550 |
|
|
|
[考研] 339求調(diào)劑，想調(diào)回江蘇 +7 | 烤麥芽 2026-03-27 | 10/500 |
|
|
|
[考研] 材料專碩調(diào)劑 +17 | 椰椰。 2026-03-29 | 17/850 |
|
|
|
[考研] 310分求調(diào)劑 +4 | 成功上岸wang 2026-04-01 | 4/200 |
|
|
|
[考研] 332求調(diào)劑 +8 | Lyy930824@ 2026-03-29 | 8/400 |
|
|
|
[考研] 0703求調(diào)劑 +4 | zizimo 2026-03-31 | 4/200 |
|
|
|
[考研] 085701環(huán)境工程，267求調(diào)劑 +17 | minht 2026-03-26 | 17/850 |
|
|
|
[考研] 11408總分309，一志愿東南大學(xué)求調(diào)劑，不挑專業(yè) +5 | 天賦帶到THU 2026-03-29 | 6/300 |
|
|
|
[考研] 材料專碩 085600求調(diào)劑 +7 | BBQ233 2026-03-30 | 7/350 |
|
|
|
[考研] 085701求調(diào)劑初試286分 +5 | secret0328 2026-03-28 | 5/250 |
|
|
|
[考研] 298求調(diào)劑 +4 | 種圣賜 2026-03-28 | 4/200 |
|