饶毅与蒲慕明：浅谈中外新闻报道的差异 1 、 Science 对饶毅的两次报道 Where to Locate Taiwan? Chinese Co-Authors Disagree （ 台湾在哪里？大陆科学家有不同意 见！ ） Piqued Chinese Dean Throws Down the Gauntlet （ 《科学》专访饶毅：希望比我优秀的人能当选院士 ） 2 、 Nature 对蒲慕明的报道 Neuroscience in China: Growth factor ( 中国神经科学的生长因子 ) 3 、杨振宁最近的新闻报道 杨振宁：中国现在很民主 我是个保守的革命者 看了中外媒体对两位大佬的新闻报道后，尤其是在学习了杨振宁的最新讲话后，我想谈谈中外媒体的差异，我想这会是一个有趣的话题。 我（杨振宁）再三地讲，中国对于人物传记的写作，历史很长，但现在像西方写人物传记那样去做的，却是很少的。西方人写传记，最大的特点是求真实。而中国当代的很多传记，比如关于华罗庚的、陈景润的，都不忍卒读，是“传记文学”，与文学相关，就有空想的成分在里头。 杨老谈的是人物传记，但是新闻报道也是一样的道理 / 情形。 饶毅因台湾地址署名问题直接向 science 报料，希望寻求他们的支持， science 果断出手了，但是它没有成为饶毅一方的打手 / 喉舌 / 传声筒，而且做出了一个完整公正的新闻报道： 1 、首先指出饶毅犯错在先（未经合作者同意擅自更改人家的地址并径直投稿） 2 、其次告诉读者台湾的地址署名本来已经是约定俗成的惯例了，这次是饶毅个人单方面鸭霸寻求改变。但是，大陆媒体对于此事件却完全鸦雀无声。 在饶毅落选院士增选事件后，郝炘再次采访饶毅，并谈及饶毅的署名争议，饶毅如是回答： Because it's their policy that only “Taiwan” or “Taiwan, ROC,” could be used in their addresses, I wanted to know whether the policy could be modified, so I wrote to Lou-Chuang Lee . But it was only an inquiry from a scientist to a fellow scientist. 显然，饶毅在撒谎，饶毅把给台湾国科会主任写信抗议事件轻描淡写的说成是科学家之间的交流，这显然不是事实！因为饶毅的信是英文，很难想象两岸的科学家交流为什么要用英文，但是如果你知道那封信同时附寄给 AAAS 会长，你就豁然开朗了。（向美国）告状（向台湾）挑衅是真，（两岸科学家）交流是假，这一点，饶毅在自己博文里也坦率承认了，自己就是要恶搞对方出口恶气。（ 当然这或许也是失败后的无奈借口 ） 对于郝炘的专访，科学网有翻译报道，可是不仅标题改了，而且内容也改的面目全非，也把我上面所引得那段话直接删除了。另外对于饶毅落选事件，中国媒体当时有长篇累牍的报道，可惜大多只是饶毅的传声筒而已，看不到理性平衡的报道，而且作为中科院主办的《科学时报》却一开始选择了沉默，到后来的指桑骂槐，可是就是不敢直接采访饶毅本人，然后进行深度报道。我想既然饶毅挺把自己当成一盘菜，科学时报实在没有理由不成全他，可凉拌可爆炒当然也可以清蒸。可是，悲剧的是，科学时报却选择了失声和远离。这难免让外人觉得中科院理亏。其实杨振宁就说得很明白，饶毅落选并不稀奇： 至于饶毅，虽然我和他不是同一个领域的，我想他的工作是没问题的，不过他的作风可能很多人不喜欢，所以他们不投他的票。在美国也有这样的情形，这并不稀奇。 最近， Nature 对蒲慕明有一个长篇报道，可惜科学网却根本没有翻译过来，反而是松鼠会把它全文翻译出来了，我觉得这篇报道非常精彩，算是人物报道的典范了。蒲慕明虽然是大牛，但是人家记者却绝对不会匍匐在他的脚下，反而是平视甚至俯视老蒲。在指出老蒲牛叉的同时，也会毫不客气的指出他的困境和缺陷，当然这一切都是借别人之口说出来的。 2000 年，蒲先生在伯克利实验室的成员将他的一封电邮帖上网络，他的声誉因此受损。他在那封电邮里哀叹了研究小组的缓慢进展：“要是再没有重大进展，你们当年加入的那个高产、一流的实验室就将不复存在。”电邮发出后，他就在实验室里推行了严格的规章，比如每周至少在实验室工作 6 天、在实验台上的工作时间总计不得低于 50 小时（阅读论文的时间是不算在内的）。有谁不遵守这些规章，就必须“立刻另做打算、离开实验室。” 一个学生还真那么做了。 蒲 先生是言出必践的。他说：“年轻人想在科学上取得成功，必须努力。”那么，那封电邮是否对他招收学生造成了影响？蒲先生犹豫了片刻说：“它起到了筛选的作用。”在伯克利的最后一个博士生去年毕业了，到现在蒲还没有积极招收学生。“我也没有时间去指导他们。”他这样解释。 结果，实验室就从 2007 年的 20 人左右缩减到目前的区区 6 人。 中国神经科学的迅速发展，也为推动发展的这家研究所带来了问题。 GSK 的国际神经退行性疾病研究基地曾经从神经所招募了至少 7 位毕业生（基地设在上海也是考虑到了神经所）， 但是蒲所长遗憾地告诉我们，其中的好几个人是没有拿到博士学位就去了 GSK 。此外，神经所的一些高级研究员也相继离职，去了北京生命科学研究所（ NIBS ）和其他大学。 蒲给出的解释是别处的工资待遇更好，但也有不愿透露姓名的研究者表示，蒲所长那种“过度掌控”的管理模式也是原因之一。 不管究竟是什么原因，目前神经所的研究人员中，半数以上在神经所还没待满 5 年；而在顶级期刊上发表的论文数量也有所下降。蒲先生建立了一个流动的体制，而这里的人员也确实在往外流动。“但这个我并不担心，”他说，“我们这里是开创事业的地方，是一个温床。” 总之，我们需要向西方一样，把矛盾 / 张力 / 挑战在谈判桌上 / 媒体上 / 会议上清晰的呈现出来。媒体太干净，会议太和谐只会导致社会不太干净、不太和谐。
今天（9月16日）的Nature又就中国的杂志发了一篇社论和一篇新闻，指责中国的大多数科学出版物是污染，并告诉我们为了提高影响因子就用英文发表。如果我们的科学杂志绝大多数（不用说全部）都办成了英文的，我们的母语还能是中文吗？我们还是中国人吗？联系奥巴马接见澳大利亚记者的谈话，他们是希望中国提高科学水平吗？我们的科研为他们服务，他们的高科技却对我们封锁，这是科学无国界吗？这样看来，他们擅改张月红文章标题是有意的，而且是主编定稿时改的。他们的用心不就一目了然了吗？我们对他们的批判仅仅是讳疾忌医吗？他们是善意地批评，还是恶意诽谤，请看他们的社论和新闻报道： Nature | Editorial Publish or perish Journal name: Nature Volume: 467 , Page: 252 Date published: (16 September 2010) DOI: doi:10.1038/467252a Published online 15 September 2010 China needs to elaborate on plans to modernize its flagging academic journals. Scientific publishing in China is in a quandary. Many articles in the country's 5,000-plus science and technology journals go unread and uncited, calling into question the value of the research. It also raises doubts over the effectiveness of China's scientific publishing which, after all, is to disseminate details of research for others around the world to build on. One Chinese scientist has referred to the majority of China's publications as pollution. Yet when it comes to publishing in international journals in English, Chinese scientists are second by volume only to those in the United States. Now, librarians and government officials in China are beginning to question why their own journals publish so few of these quality papers. The country's General Administration of Press and Publication (GAPP), which regulates all publishing, is to make reforms to strengthen its home-grown industry. This makes sense. And publishers in China could no doubt beat their Western counterparts at their own game. But GAPP has so far given few details of the reforms, causing confusion among the people most closely involved: the publishers. How should it be done? GAPP should be aggressive as it has promised (see page 261 ) in evaluating its journals, improving the strong and killing off the weak. The resources and publishing rights currently allotted to eliminated journals could be transferred to the growing number of scientists and publishers who are familiar with the international publishing landscape and are finding niche areas for new products. Many of these journals will be in English, and additional resources will be needed to help ensure that articles read well and are peer-reviewed fairly. Clearly, there is a strong demand for more information on the best science in China. This is especially true in fields in which the country excels, such as optics and materials, but also in areas such as public health, where data from China have been overlooked (see Nature 430 , 955; 2004 ). If done well, these new journals could bridge a gap between the stronger Chinese literature and foreign scientists. A publisher of optics and photonics journals at the Changchun Institute of Optics, Fine Mechanics and Physics, for example, already plans an English-language publication to replace its weakest optics journal. It is a response to increasing demand from those researchers who have read abstracts in English and want a full translation. The journal will publish reviews that put Chinese experiments into the wider context of global trends. The best opportunity to revive Chinese publishing, whether in Chinese or English, probably lies in an open-access platform increasingly popular in Western journals. Many Chinese journals already charge authors a publication fee, so should be able to make a smooth transition to the open-access model, in which they are supported by fees rather than by subscription revenues. Making content freely available would help to popularize journals, and would encourage them to develop an online presence. Too many operate without one, enjoying a captive audience at their home institutions and lacking any competitive spur to bring themselves up to speed on Internet publishing. The government could provide the interest, investment and expertise to bring these publishers into the twenty-first century. It would, however, be a mistake for government agencies to give themselves too strong a role in this transition. GAPP has mentioned the creation of five to ten strong publishing houses that would concentrate on science and technology. This could work well, provided that they are able to move freely and openly, and can compete both with each other and with foreign publishers. Most importantly, GAPP needs to consult quickly with its publishers if reform measures are to be put in place by next January, as intended. The lack of details mean that resistance to the reforms from publishers seems unavoidable. GAPP needs to make its expectations and evaluation methods transparent and bring in its reforms consistently. So far, that does not seem to be happening. Published online 15 September 2010 | Nature 467 , 261 (2010) | doi:10.1038/467261a News Strong medicine for China's journals Weak publications will be 'terminated'. David Cyranoski Li Dongdong plans major reforms for Chinese publishing. IMAGINECHINA Few Chinese scientists would be surprised to hear that many of the country's scientific journals are filled with incremental work, read by virtually no one and riddled with plagiarism. But the Chinese government's solution to this problem came as a surprise last week. Li Dongdong, a vice-minister of state and deputy director of the General Administration of Press and Publications (GAPP) the powerful government body that regulates all publications in China acknowledged that the country's scientific publishing had a severe problem, with a big gap between quality and quantity, and needed reform. Opening a meeting of scientific publishers in Shanghai on 7 September, Li announced that by January 2011, new regulations will be used to terminate weak journals. Precisely how this reform will work is the subject of hot debate. If an evaluation process finds a journal to be weak, it may be forced to close altogether, or relaunch with a different editorial board, a different title or even a different subject focus. Those journals judged to be strong will receive support such as tax breaks. Scientific publishing will be concentrated in five-to-ten large publishing groups that will compete with each other, says Li. We will turn China from a large science and technology publisher to a powerful science and technology publisher. GAPP did not respond to Nature 's requests for more information. News of the regulation startled many of the publishers at last week's meeting, the 6th China Science Journal Development Forum. Some believe that bureaucrats should not be interfering with journals, and others say that powerful scientists will resist the move. But all agreed that China's scientific publishing is in bad shape. Approximately one-third of the roughly 5,000 predominantly Chinese-language journals are 'campus journals', existing only so that graduate students and professors can accumulate the publications necessary for career advancement, according to one senior publisher. And in a Correspondence to Nature last week, Yuehong Zhang of the Journal of Zhejiang UniversityScience reported that a staggering 31% of the papers submitted to that campus journal contained plagiarized material ( Nature 467, 153; 2010 ). Most Chinese journals make their money through funding from their host institutions, and by charging authors per-page publishing fees. Most are never cited. Who knows if they're even really published. They're ghosts, says one publisher, who declined to be named. Wu Haiyun, a cardiologist at the Chinese PLA General Hospital in Beijing, says that only 510% of these journals are worth saving, and the rest are information pollution. Most of China's top researchers already forgo Chinese publications for international ones, where they earn the recognition that can promote their career. And they are increasingly successful: in November 2009, scientists from China became the second-most prolific publishers of scientific articles in international scientific journals. But some Chinese librarians are beginning to baulk at the prices charged by these foreign journals. On 1 September, an open letter signed by 35 librarians criticized foreign science, technology and medicine publishers for using their monopolistic position to raise subscription prices annually by more than 14% for the next 3 years. Meanwhile, some of the better Chinese journals are being published in collaboration with foreign companies such as WileyBlackwell and Springer, respectively headquartered in Hoboken, New Jersey, and Berlin. Cell Research , for example, based at the Shanghai Institutes for Biological Sciences and co-published by Nature Publishing Group, reached an impact factor of 8.2 in 2009 the highest in the Asia-Pacific region, including Australia. Impact factors could provide an important cornerstone of the government's evaluation system. For example, the Chinese Journal Citation Report, published by the Institute of Scientific and Technical Information of China since 2004 and covering some 1,800 of China's top journals, provides impact factors that measure their significance on the basis of the number of times that articles are cited by peers. Many Chinese journals are switching to publishing in English to increase their impact factors, and more than 200 English-language science and technology journals are now based in China. ACTA Genetica Sinica became the Journal of Genetics and Genomics in 2007; Neuroscience Bulletin , founded in 1998, switched to English in 2006; and in January 2009, Acta Zoologica Sinica , published since 1935 and the second-oldest journal in China, became Current Zoology . In its first year, the proportion of papers that it published from non-Chinese scientists shot up from 16% to 42%. Having earned a spot on the list of journals counted by Thomson Reuters Web of Knowledge, the journal is awaiting its first impact factor. Martin Stevens, a zoologist at the University of Cambridge, UK, says that Current Zoology is now finding a niche. Before, there weren't any journals that had this relatively broad audience. Many looked at specific areas of biology, says Stevens, who guest edited a special issue of the journal about how the sensory system relates to evolution. ADVERTISEMENT
标签: 新闻报道
![[转载]各个媒体纷纷报道成功举行了《2012中国网络科学论坛》](http://image.sciencenet.cn/album/201205/03/204418vx05wrrdf2vl0dw0.jpg.thumb.jpg)
