Shots In The Dark: The Crimson's New Cop

Wednesday, March 21, 2007

The Crimson's New Cop

The Crimson has an ombudsman! The Crimson has an ombudsman!

The only problem is, he seeems to have adopted that sage-but-reasonable tone of ombudsmen everywhere.

For example...in his first column, he picks a juicy topic: an article about students who participate in medical experiments, which highlighted one particularly curious example of a student forced to live in a room in Mass General for five days with "dim, unchanging light."

The ombudsman, an HLS student and former reporter named Michael Kolber, sniffs a rat .

Kolber points out that the student says he was paid $250, or $50 a day, for his participation, which is obviously absurd, if only for the reason that when you figure what it costs him to go to Harvard for five days, he (or his parents, anyway) would be losing a substantial amount of money. Which would make the student in question an idiot, who therefore could not have gotten into Harvard.

Kolber called the student, who answered evasively and then hung up the phone.

Kolber writes:

The trouble with the article is the complete credence The Crimson gave to a story that had some fairly far-fetched sounding elements. The reporter should have attempted to contact the hospital or the researcher to verify the story.

At minimum, the story should have contained some context for the experiment, perhaps a doctor discussing the potential health impacts of repeatedly being a test subject. Or, The Crimson could have discussed the review process that all experiments involving human subjects must undergo.

The reporter did none of this, nor did his editors ask him to.

Well...yes. But no. The trouble with the article is that this part of it is obviously complete bullshit. Kolber should have explicitly stated his concern that this anecdote is fraudulent. Obviously, I think it is, and I suspect he does too. Doesn't the ombudsman have the obligation to come out and say that he thinks a story is fake?

_______________________________________________________________

P.S. As a favor to the new ombudsman—because that's the kind of blogger I am— I offer this constructive suggestion: When critiquing a specific article, add the relevant hyperlink to the online version of your column so that readers can read the article in question....

¶ 7:43 AM

Comments:

Does the line of reporting of the Ombdusman reach to Harvard's administration?

# posted by Anonymous : March 21, 2007 8:25 AM

How so?

# posted by Richard Bradley : March 21, 2007 8:37 AM

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of this story is that it focuses on the possibility that Harvard is doing psychological experiments on Human Subjects which are very similar to interrogation techniques used by intelligence agencies.

The ombudsman was unable to disconfirm that the experiment had taken place when he contacted Harvard officials.

The Atlantic Monthly publishe din June 2000 a most interesting story --Harvard and the Making of the Unibomber-- discussing similar psychological studies on Harvard students. That study highlighted that most of these students came from the ranks of the less affluent students who had to place themselves at risk in these experiments.

Shouldn't a student at the Law School have pursued that subject in greater depth in a front page article in the Crimson? Or does 'thinking like a lawyer' not need exercising moral reasoning about the possibility that Harvard researchers may be placing subjects at risk in conducting psychological experiments.

It sounds as if the Crimson has put itself in the position of now needing to write a story on this subject. And researching it well along with publishing it on the front page.

# posted by Anonymous : March 21, 2007 8:40 AM

The number of experimental studies on human subjects conducted at Harvard as balooned over the last decade.

Has anyone reviewed who are the subjects of these studies? are they disproportionately members of minority communities or poor?

Should the on-going studies be reviewed by a panel of ethicists? Is the memory of Tuskeege alive at Harvard?

Between 1932 and 1972, the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) conducted an experiment on 399 black men in the late stages of syphilis. These men, for the most part illiterate sharecroppers from one of the poorest counties in Alabama, were never told what
disease they were suffering from or of its seriousness. Informed that they were being treated for “bad blood,” their doctors had no intention of curing them of syphilis at all.

The data for the experiment was to be collected from autopsies of the men, and they were thus deliberately left to degenerate under the ravages of tertiary syphilis—which can include tumors, heart disease, paralysis, blindness, insanity, and death. One of the doctors involved said: “we have no further interest in these patients until they die.”

The sharecroppers' easy to manipulate because they were poor and liked the idea of
free medical care, said James Jones. He also said they were pawns in “the longest non-
therapeutic experiment on human beings in medical history.”

The study was to compare blacks and whites reaction to syphilis, thinking that whites
experienced more neurological complications from syphilis whereas blacks would have
more cardiovascular damage.

# posted by Anonymous : March 21, 2007 8:47 AM

The Crimson published a story a few days ago reporting what seemed a strange practice in one of the research labs:

"a Latino cage-worker with high blood pressure and a phobia of snakes and reptiles was sent to work with those animals"

Could this have been part of an experiment? Who would send a worker with a phobia of reptiles to a cage full of snakes and for what purpose?

# posted by Anonymous : March 21, 2007 8:53 AM

Interesting thoughts. But I still think the student was making it up.

# posted by Richard Bradley : March 21, 2007 8:54 AM

Those at Harvard currently doing experiments on humans would do well to remember the story of Stanley Milgram, who obtained a doctorate in psychology from Harvard in 1960. Three years later he published the article "Behavioral study of obedience". In the ensuing controversy that erupted, the APA held up his application for membership for a year because of questions about the ethics of his work, but then granted him full membership. Ten years later, in 1974, Milgram published Obedience to Authority and was awarded the annual social psychology award by the AAAS (mostly for his work over the social aspects of obedience). Inspired in part by the 1961 trial of Adolph Eichmann, his models were later also used to explain the 1968 My Lai massacre (including authority training in the military, depersonalizing the "enemy" through race and cultural differences, etc.).

Perhaps an irony indicative that all are judged in due time, Milgram was denied tenure at Harvard. When he left he sprayed painted obscenities on the walls of his Harvard office in anger. Milgram died of a massive heart attack at the age of 51, leaving two children.

One would hope that there are numerous case studies based on the Milgram experiment taught at all graduate schools at Harvard doing research on human subjects...

# posted by Anonymous : March 21, 2007 9:00 AM

During Larry's presidency there was a massive proliferation of experimental research in humans.

There was a big controversy at the School of Public Health over an AIDs project in Africa because the principal investigator refused to use te project to conduct experiments on poor africans. Larry had much direct interest on this case and the principal investigator of this project was replaced.

Perhaps it is time to take a look at the experiments Harvard is conducting in Africa.

# posted by Anonymous : March 21, 2007 9:04 AM

I've not exactly been supportive of the Summers presidency, but this is new to me.....

--During Larry's presidency there was a massive proliferation of experimental research in humans.——

Anyone got anything to back this up?

# posted by Richard Bradley : March 21, 2007 9:12 AM

You may want to give a call to Phyllis Kanki and Paul Farmer at HSPH...

# posted by Anonymous : March 21, 2007 9:19 AM

Here's one instance of Mass Hall direct interest in AIDs research:

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=507255

# posted by Anonymous : March 21, 2007 9:22 AM

The Summers Presidency itself was a large scale experimental study of obedience to authority.

Fortunately some of the subjects of the study refused to play their part.

# posted by Anonymous : March 21, 2007 9:36 AM

Most of this comment thread is crazy talk. Harvard, like all institutions receiving government funding, has VERY thorough committees to approve anything that has any human-subjects component. This is often held to include even documentary filmmaking. Milgram is a byword, and there is no scandal here.

But yes indeed! it is news that the Crimson has an ombudsman. Very, very good news -- if this kind of proper 'should have' reporting can be maintained.

Here's a possible topic: how does the Editorial Board set its agenda, and how does it avoid the conflict of interest involved in commenting on College social life, given that the Crimson is ITSELF a phenomenally important social organization to a large swath of the student body? Wouldn't a stronger dorm-based social life make the Crimson less influential as a time-suck and social center for its members?

Just a thought: mostly, though, bravo to the ombudsman! for doing a real job at his job. Hope he reads up on how bad Deborah Howell and Okrent both were at theirs, on the merits.

Standing Eagle

# posted by Standing Eagle : March 21, 2007 9:49 AM

Interesting that this thread has triggered this angry response from Standing Eagle...

Perhaps something about this thread gets close to SE's own interests or responsibilities?

Just a thought.

# posted by Anonymous : March 21, 2007 9:56 AM

And by the way, Richard, I think your criticism of the ombudsman for not "coming out and saying he thinks the story is a fake" is very misplaced. The ombudsman should stick to the facts of the reporting process; when those are clearly inadequate, as in this case, he should say so, as he has done.

The very fact that the Crimson is now publishing someone who is willing to say editors "should have" done ANYTHING differently, of any kind, is a huge step. But even more: the ombudsman is not paid to draw conclusions about facts in the world. He is paid to do just what this guy did -- look into the reporting process and point out weaknesses. What matters to the ombudsman is NOT that this guy wasn't kept in a room; it's that the reporter doesn't have a strong basis for saying he was.

In like fashion, even if Iraq had turned out to have WMDs somewhere, Judith Miller would still have been criminally negligent in her reporting, and it would have been the ombudsman's job to say so even if nukes were found. Process is what matters; it's all that stands in the way of reportorial credulity or incredulity driven by self-interest (cf. the Solomon story about Edwards a couple months ago).

Long-windedly,

Standing Eagle

# posted by Standing Eagle : March 21, 2007 9:56 AM

Standing Eagle:

What are your thoughts on your Provost's involvement in this case?

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=507255

Was that report in the Crimson just crazy talk as well?

# posted by Anonymous : March 21, 2007 9:57 AM

Standing Eagle,

This thread has really motivated you to write a series of long winded contributions indeed.

Why is that? are you trying to bury the entries that point out that the ethics of Harvard's research on human subjects should be scrutinized? Is this something you would prefer the new President not to focus on?

# posted by Anonymous : March 21, 2007 9:59 AM

Anonymous,

Yes, very astute: if I call you crazy and uninformed, it is safe to conclude that I am an angry person with a painfully gored ox.

You may also conclude that I am in charge of human-subject approval protocols for Harvard's on-campus crack house, which occupies prime real estate in Boylston Hall and is under 24-hour-surveillance through a closed circuit to the Anthropology Department.

Curses! I would have gotten away with it if not for you meddling anonymous commenters.

Standing Eagle

# posted by Standing Eagle : March 21, 2007 10:01 AM

The Kanki case looks legitimately interesting.

Occam's Razor suggests that anonymous should consider the possibility that I type wicked fast and had the Extra Large coffee this morning.

Also, the experiment requires that I continue.

Standing Eagle

PS. I would stop typing now, but the experiment requires that I go on. The experiment will fail unless I administer the next series of verbal shocks....

# posted by Standing Eagle : March 21, 2007 10:04 AM

Interesting reference to Boylston Hall. Is this a building you see from your window?

# posted by Anonymous : March 21, 2007 10:07 AM

Eagle,

can you spot valentine and fountain from your nest?

# posted by Anonymous : March 21, 2007 10:26 AM

Oh, Standing Eagle, that's a crock. If the ombudsman thinks the story was fake, he should say so. At the very least, he should say that the circumstances of the story and its reporting raise the possibility that it's fake.

# posted by Richard Bradley : March 21, 2007 10:26 AM

it is impossible to see the truth from a perch of ignorance.

# posted by Anonymous : March 21, 2007 11:07 AM

There's a hawk nest in the Old Yard. Is the nom de plume 'Standing Eagle' a reference to the Hawks that occasionally stand there? right in front of Mass Hall?

# posted by Anonymous : March 21, 2007 11:15 AM

That would mean the second floor windows in the Yard are a prime spot to admire the birds.

# posted by Anonymous : March 21, 2007 11:16 AM

Richard,

To me, "suspicious," "far-fetched," and "[undeserving of] total credence" are more than enough to "raise the possibility" that the story is fake. To really draw that conclusion as firmly as you want him to, the ombudsman would have had to go do more reporting, which is not (I repeat) his job. As you can tell from the account of the follow-up conversation with Gordon, that reporting might have been a pretty involved process.

Yes, I'd say the possibility is (like the 'question of whether the Iraq war was justified') raised -- and would caution further that if STAYS raised for more than four hours, or becomes painful, you should consult a physician.

I say this ombudstory goes precisely far enough.

Kisses,

Goldilocks

# posted by Standing Eagle : March 21, 2007 11:17 AM

"--During Larry's presidency there was a massive proliferation of experimental research in humans.——"
That's a cheap shot, Richard, especially since the previous poster said the increase was over ten years. The vast majority of it is likely mandatory participation by students in psychology classes. Their attendance has ballooned in recent years with the advent of guts like The Psychology of Leadership and Positive Psychology and also with Pinker's very popular core class. The comparison with Milgram's experiments (which were arguably justifiable) is unfair, and with the Tuskegee experiments, ridiculous - no students are getting killed by Harvard psych Professors.
And as for the story about the student in the hospital - There are plenty enough jobs around on campus for anyone who wants one or even two to have them, it is unlikely that a student could justify this stunt reasonably. If a he/she 1. didn't care about missing a week of class, 2. wanted the money that badly, and 3. is that stupid, I think it's case closed that he/she is a pothead supporting his/her habit.
I know you hate Larry, but I don't think this issue is working for you.

# posted by Anonymous : March 21, 2007 5:21 PM

cheap shot?

Didn't Jeffrey Epstein, Larry Summers and Steven Pinker use to have very engaged conversations on experiments with humans?

# posted by Anonymous : March 21, 2007 6:11 PM

5:12 PM...before you accuse Richard of "hating" Larry...which is a pretty strong word...I wish you'd go back and read "9:12 AM - Richard Bradley said:" and tell me where it says he "hates" Larry...or for that matter anytime or anywhere he has ever said that. You obviously haven't read much Richard Bradley has ever written.

lmpaulsen

# posted by Anonymous : March 21, 2007 10:11 PM

Sorry for the triple entry...just an indication of how strongly I feel about what I said...and my own technological incompetence. Don't you just hate when that happens?

lmpaulsen

# posted by Anonymous : March 21, 2007 10:20 PM

To Anon 5:21—I'm not the person who said anything about medical experiments, I was quoting a previous poster. Skeptically, I might add.

# posted by Richard Bradley : March 22, 2007 12:03 AM

March 21, 2007 10:11 PM, lmpaulson
I've read pretty much everything on this blog, including a lot of the jokes about Richard having a pathological hatred of Larry Summers. Should have made that funnier, maybe next time.

# posted by Anonymous : March 22, 2007 12:20 AM

Wups.

# posted by Anonymous : March 22, 2007 12:22 AM

The proliferation of experiments in humans at Harvard goes well beyond medical experiments. In fact the experiments conducted by the physicians are probably not the most objectionable.

Someone should take a look at the ethics of some of the experiments done by psychologists, sociologist, economists, and political scientists.

# posted by Anonymous : March 22, 2007 7:08 AM

About Me