The Truth about MonkeyGate: Harvard Speaks
Posted on August 20th, 2010 in Uncategorized | 44 Comments »
Michael Smith, the dean of the Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences, has released a statement regarding Marc Hauser and the allegations of scientific fraud.
It’s printed below in its entirety.
Dear faculty colleagues,
No dean wants to see a member of the faculty found responsible for scientific misconduct, for such misconduct strikes at the core of our academic values. Thus, it is with great sadness that I confirm that Professor Marc Hauser was found solely responsible, after a thorough investigation by a faculty investigating committee, for eight instances of scientific misconduct under FAS standards. The investigation was governed by our long-standing policies on professional conduct and shaped by the regulations of federal funding agencies. After careful review of the investigating committee’s confidential report and opportunities for Professor Hauser to respond, I accepted the committee’s findings and immediately moved to fulfill our obligations to the funding agencies and scientific community and to impose appropriate sanctions.
Harvard, like every major research institution, takes a finding of scientific misconduct extremely seriously and imposes consequential sanctions on individuals found to have committed scientific misconduct. Rigid adherence to the scientific method and scrupulous attention to the integrity of research results are values we expect in every one of our faculty, students, and staff.
In brief, when allegations of scientific misconduct arise, the FAS Standing Committee on Professional Conduct (CPC) is charged with beginning a process of inquiry into the allegations. The inquiry phase is followed by an investigation phase that is conducted by an impartial committee of qualified, tenured faculty (the investigating committee), provided that the dean, advised by the CPC, believes the allegations warrant further investigation. The work of the investigating committee as well as its final report are considered confidential to protect both the individuals who made the allegations and those who assisted in the investigation. Our investigative process will not succeed if individuals do not have complete confidence that their identities can be protected throughout the process and after the findings are reported to the appropriate agencies. Furthermore, when the allegations concern research involving federal funding, funding agency regulations govern our processes during the investigation and our obligations after our investigation is complete. (For example, federal regulations impose an ongoing obligation to protect the identities of those who provided assistance to the investigation.) When the investigation phase is complete, the investigating committee produces a confidential report describing their activity and their findings. The response of the accused to this report and the report itself are considered by the dean, who then decides whether to accept the findings, and in the case of a finding of misconduct, determine the sanctions that are appropriate. This entire and extensive process was followed in the current case.
Since some of the research in the current case was supported by federal funds, the investigating committee’s report and other supplemental material were submitted to the federal offices responsible for their own review, in accordance with federal regulations and FAS procedures. Our usual practice is not to publicly comment on such cases, one reason being to ensure the integrity of the government’s review processes.
A key obligation in a scientific misconduct case is to correct any affected publications, and our confidentiality policies do not conflict with this obligation. In this case, after accepting the findings of the committee, I immediately moved to have the record corrected for those papers that were called into question by the investigation. The committee’s report indicated that three publications needed to be corrected or retracted, and this is now a matter of public record. To date, the paper, “Rule learning by cotton-top tamarins,” Cognition 86, B15-B22 (2002) has been retracted because the data produced in the published experiments did not support the published findings; and a correction was published to the paper, “Rhesus monkeys correctly read the goal-relevant gestures of a human agent,” Proceedings of the Royal Society B 274, 1913-1918 (2007). The authors continue to work with the editors of the third publication, “The perception of rational, goal-directed action in nonhuman primates,” Science 317, 1402-1405 (2007). As we reported to one of these editors, the investigating committee found problems with respect to the three publications mentioned previously, and five other studies that either did not result in publications or where the problems were corrected prior to publication. While different issues were detected for the studies reviewed, overall, the experiments reported were designed and conducted, but there were problems involving data acquisition, data analysis, data retention, and the reporting of research methodologies and results.
Beyond these responsibilities to the funding agencies and the scientific community, Harvard considers confidential the specific sanctions applied to anyone found responsible for scientific misconduct. However, to enlighten those unfamiliar with the available sanctions, options in findings of scientific misconduct include involuntary leave, the imposition of additional oversight on a faculty member’s research lab, and appropriately severe restrictions on a faculty member’s ability to apply for research grants, to admit graduate students, and to supervise undergraduate research. To ensure compliance with the imposed sanctions, those within Harvard with oversight of the affected activities are informed of the sanctions that fall within their administrative responsibilities.
As should be clear from this letter, I have a deeply rooted faith in our process and the shared values upon which it is founded. Nonetheless, it is healthy to review periodically our long-standing practices. Consequently, I will form a faculty committee this fall to reaffirm or recommend changes to the communication and confidentiality practices associated with the conclusion of cases involving allegations of professional misconduct. To be clear, I will ask the committee to consider our policies covering all professional misconduct cases and not comment solely on the current scientific misconduct case.
In summary, Harvard has completed its investigation of the several allegations in the current case and does not anticipate making any additional findings, statements, or corrections to the scientific record with respect to those allegations. This does not mean, however, that others outside Harvard have completed their reviews. In particular, Harvard continues to cooperate with all federal inquiries into this matter by the PHS Office of Research Integrity, the NSF Office of Inspector General and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts.
Respectfully yours,
Michael D. Smith
Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
44 Responses
8/20/2010 1:12 pm
Wow: total vindication for Richard Bradley on the confidentiality question! I admit I did not expect anything of the sort.
It’s hard to tell how overdue this statement actually is, but it sure is refreshing.
Hope the post-mortem lays out good principles for future communicativeness.
8/20/2010 1:18 pm
Thanks, SE, I guess. Vindication is always nice.
I agree that the note is refreshing, and the candor of it is appropriate and welcome. (Although perhaps this should have been done a week or so ago? Before the Globe broke the story?)
It will be interesting to find out what really happened; the best place to start seems to be that Chronicle of Higher Education piece I wrote about yesterday.
8/20/2010 1:45 pm
I think there is a good case for keeping the sanctions confidential — there’s no real public benefit to knowing exactly what Harvard did to Hauser. However, I don’t see a good case for continuing to keep the findings confidential. I’m grateful that Dean Smith’s letter gives some indication of the nature of the findings, but why not publish the specific findings?
Of course, it would be necessary to suppress anything that might indirectly disclose the identity of the complainants. But it would be possible to describe the problems in more detail without compromising anonymity. Indeed, Hauser himself was surely given some version of the findings to respond to; why not make that version public?
8/20/2010 3:17 pm
This is a very good statment. And very good timing, just prior to the start of classes. It will be on the minds of students… their Moral Minds that is.
8/20/2010 3:39 pm
Remind me again how or why RB is “vindicated”? Apart from calling for transparency like everyone else has been doing…
None of those sanctions strike me as very meaningful; the hope is that a faculty commentator might explain them for us. Can MH lose his tenure? Is he still paid his salary while on “involuntary leave”? If no to the first, and/or yes to the second, the only real price he is paying is public exposure of his fraud. But the lifelong job continues…
8/20/2010 4:33 pm
If anyone or anything is deserving of vindication it’s Harvard. Yes, Richard has called for transparency, but he’s also been highly critical of the manner in which Harvard has handled things, taking issue with Harvard’s “undignified silence,” suggesting said ‘silence’ was a “cover-up,” opining that the University wasn’t “doing the right thing,” and that it’s legal obligations with respect to the case were “stupid.” He even went as far as to liken President Faust to a fictional character who is characterized as being out of touch with reality, craves power and has questionable motives.
Richard was correct in his transparency, but his righteous indignation isn’t.
8/20/2010 4:46 pm
Dean Smith’s words are cautious but also very telling:
“such misconduct strikes at the core of our academic values”
This strikes me as something that will be taken much more seriously than the Econ prof who stole cow maneure in his town, or the other Econ prof whose wife engaged in insider trading in Russia. Those two acts, while unethical, did not strike at the ‘core’ of Harvard’s academic values as much as falsifying data.
This is not over. Perhaps HBS publishing is writing a case about this, or the Safra Center for Ethics.
8/20/2010 4:58 pm
Should Dean Smith also call for some deliberation among the faculty on Harvard’s faculty role promoting the ethical development of students?
8/20/2010 5:57 pm
Harvard is now number 1 in the latest rankings. Not bad for a University so badly hit by endowment losses
http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges
8/20/2010 7:44 pm
“Yes, Richard has called for transparency, but he’s also been highly critical of the manner in which Harvard has handled things, taking issue with Harvard’s “undignified silence,” suggesting said ’silence’ was a “cover-up,” opining that the University wasn’t “doing the right thing” … ”
SpadeGuy,
Today the university itself that in its level of transparency it had indeed not been doing the right thing. When a dean writes a letter communicating something, and at the same time announcing the formation of a committee to issue recommendations on changing practices of communication, he is saying We F*cked Up, Bad.
Moreover, when a dean announces that an investigation arrived at an outcome but pointedly omits to say WHEN, he is acknowledging that he could have announced it sooner. As I implied earlier, it’s possible that the federal investigations precluded announcing things MUCH sooner, but my guess is that this note is, say, seven months overdue.
This is a major vindication for people who thought Harvard was unnecessarily hiding the ball on this one. I cheerfully admit I wasn’t one of them; in fact, yesterday I was considering picking a fight, just for fun, with Richard on the topic, as I did in the case of the student sent away after the Kirkland House killing. If I’d had any basis for doing so I might have been quicker about it… dog days of summer, you know.
Read through the letter again: it IS very much a ‘mistakes were made’ letter, even though it indicates that there was rigor in the processes of investigation. It soothes this former bureaucrat’s soul.
Standing Eagle
8/20/2010 7:50 pm
First sentence should read, “Today the university itself ACKNOWLEDGED that in its level of transparency it had indeed not been doing the right thing.”
8/21/2010 4:19 am
The three papers Dean Smith specifically mentions were published after MH received tenure (one in 2002, two in 2007). There were five other studies with problems, Dean Smith says; some of these did not result in publication, while others had problems that were corrected before publication. Were these studies also post-tenure studies?
Just wondering.
8/21/2010 8:44 am
Harry, Richard T, Judith,
I’m puzzled. What is the role of The FAS faculty at this stage?
8/21/2010 9:11 am
My sense, Sam, is that FAS is represented by the Committee on Professional Conduct and has no role in the case once it is referred to that group. The matter could otherwise come up in Question Period in an FAS meeting, but I think there is no formal role from here on.
8/21/2010 9:59 am
Two years ago (timing is important, as it postdates the problematic experiments) Professor Hauser wrote this entry in ‘edge’. In retrospect, a very interesting account of how he changed his mind about why organisms take unusual risks:
http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_3.html#hauser
“The Limits Of Darwinian Reasoning
Darwin is the man, and like so many biologists, I have benefited from his prescient insights, handed to us 150 years ago. The logic of adaptation has been a guiding engine of my research and my view of life. In fact, it has been difficult to view the world through any other filter. I can still recall with great vividness the day I arrived in Cambridge, in June 1992, a few months before starting my job as an assistant professor at Harvard. I was standing on a street corner, waiting for a bus to arrive, and noticed a group of pigeons on the sidewalk. There were several males displaying, head bobbing and cooing, attempting to seduce the females. The females, however, were not paying attention. They were all turned, in Prussian solider formation, out toward the street, looking at the middle of the intersection where traffic was whizzing by. There, in the intersection, was one male pigeon, displaying his heart out. Was this guy insane? Hadn’t he read the handbook of natural selection. Dude, it’s about survival. Get out of the street!!!
Further reflection provided the solution to this apparently mutant, male pigeon. The logic of adaptation requires us to ask about the costs and benefits of behavior, trying to understand what the fitness payoffs might be. Even for behaviors that appear absurdly deleterious, there is often a benefit lurking. In the case of our apparently suicidal male pigeon, there was a benefit, and it was lurking in the females’ voyeurism, their rubber necking. The females were oriented toward this male, as opposed to the conservative guys on the sidewalk, because he was playing with danger, showing off, proving that even in the face of heavy traffic, he could fly like a butterfly and sting like a bee, jabbing and jiving like the great Muhammed Ali.
The theory comes from the evolutionary biologist Amotz Zahavi who proposed that even costly behaviors that challenge survival can evolve if they have payoffs to genetic fitness; these payoffs arrive in the currency of more matings, and ultimately, more babies. Our male pigeon was showing off his handicap. He was advertising to the females that even in the face of potential costs from Hummers and Beamers and Buses, he was still walking the walk and talking the talk. The females were hooked, mesmerized by this extraordinarily macho male. Handicaps evolve because they are honest indicators of fitness. And Zahavi’s theory represents the intellectual descendent of Darwin’s original proposal.
I must admit, however, that in recent years, I have made less use of Darwin’s adaptive logic. It is not because I think that the adaptive program has failed, or that it can’t continue to account for a wide variety of human and animal behavior. But with respect to questions of human and animal mind, and especially some of the unique products of the human mind — language, morality, music, mathematics — I have, well, changed my mind about the power of Darwinian reasoning.
Let me be clear about the claim here. I am not rejecting Darwin’s emphasis on comparative approaches, that is, the use of phylogenetic or historical data. I still practice this approach, contrasting the abilities of humans and animals in the service of understanding what is uniquely human and what is shared. And I still think our cognitive prowess evolved, and that the human brain and mind can be studied in some of the same ways that we study other bits of anatomy and behavior. But where I have lost the faith, so to speak, is in the power of the adaptive program to explain or predict particular design features of human thought.
Although it is certainly reasonable to say that language, morality and music have design features that are adaptive, that would enhance reproduction and survival, evidence for such claims is sorely missing. Further, for those who wish to argue that the evidence comes from the complexity of the behavior itself, and the absurdly low odds of constructing such complexity by chance, these arguments just don’t cut it with respect to explaining or predicting the intricacies of language, morality, music or many other domains of knowledge.
In fact, I would say that although Darwin’s theory has been around, and readily available for the taking for 150 years, it has not advanced the fields of linguistics, ethics, or mathematics. This is not to say that it can’t advance these fields. But unlike the areas of economic decision making, mate choice, and social relationships, where the adaptive program has fundamentally transformed our understanding, the same can not be said for linguistics, ethics, and mathematics. What has transformed these disciplines is our growing understanding of mechanism, that is, how the mind represents the world, how physiological processes generate these representations, and how the child grows these systems of knowledge.
Bidding Darwin adieu is not easy. My old friend has served me well. And perhaps one day he will again. Until then, farewell.”
8/21/2010 10:28 am
Sam,
As I understand it, Richard Thomas is right. Once a matter has been referred to the Committee on Professional Conduct it does not go back to the FAS as a whole. Instead, the CPC investigates, writes a report, and sends it to the Dean.
The FAS will play a role in the review of our current procedures in cases of professional misconduct. Dean Smith says explicitly that the committee he will appoint to conduct this review will not be looking at what happened in the Hauser case. Instead, it will look more broadly at the principles and practices involved and decide whether these are appropriate. That committee would presumably develop ideas about any possible revisions and write a report about their considerations, along with any recommendations they might make. That would go to the Dean, but it would (if I’m not mistaken) also go to Faculty Council and from there to FAS as a whole. If revisions need to be made, they would need to be discussed and voted on at an FAS meeting.
8/21/2010 10:30 am
In my comment above, please insert the words “in consideration of cases of professional misconduct” after the words “principles and practuces involved.” Sorry my formulation was so vague.
8/21/2010 11:38 am
RT and Judith,
Thanks very much for your clear answers. Now I understand the procedure.
Dean Smith said that Professor Hauser was “found solely responsible … for eight instances of scientific misconduct under FAS standards.”
I’m not in the academy and so wonder about the workings therein. My natural question as an outsider would be: if eight instances of scientific misconduct doesn’t remove you from your position, what academic misconduct might?
8/21/2010 12:40 pm
The Chronicle reports a statement from Hauser yesterday in which he admits making mistakes but doesn’t appear to acknowledge misconduct:
http://chronicle.com/blogPost/Harvard-Scientist-Acknowledges/26369/
Hauser’s remarks were sent to USA Today yesterday evening in response to a request for comment. The full text can be found at:
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2010/08/marc-hauser-harvard-science-misconduct-/1
Among the many bewildering aspects of this story, one can add the choice of USA Today as recipient of a comment.
8/21/2010 12:44 pm
Yes, I asked the question above, hoping RT/JR/HL would bite — can tenure be revoked? Does “involuntary leave” mean salary is still paid?
8/21/2010 12:56 pm
You all know as much as the rest of us. The sanctions are enumerated in Dean Smith’s letter.
8/21/2010 1:46 pm
Yes, RT, but what do they mean? If his salary is still paid while he’s on leave — isn’t that typically the case? — doesn’t seem like much punishment.
8/21/2010 1:54 pm
I just checked the Faculty Handbook under “Research Conduct and Administration,” subtitled “Principles and Policies that Govern Your Research and Other Professional Activities.” There’s a rubric called “Procedures for Responding to Allegations of Misconduct in Research.” Everything is laid out very clearly, but I couldn’t see any mention of specific sanctions. Thus, we can only go on the list that Dean Smith says in his letter. That list is presumably based on precedent.
By the way, one statement of interest in this section of the Faculty Handbook is the following statement:
“Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion.”
I think this may answer the question implicitly raised by “bid[d]ing Darwin adieu.”
As for “sanctions'” question about tenure: yes, it can be revoked. I can’t exactly see where this is stated, but I haven’t reread the entire Faculty Handbook (yet). I believe that there have been cases in the past where tenure has been revoked, but such cases are usually kept confidential. So it isn’t totally clear where the threshold for revocation of tenure lies.
The two Economics professors (the one who stole a truckload of manure and the other who was sued by the U.S. government for his financial dealings in Russia), both lost their named chairs, even though their cases were quite different. But Marc Hauser does not have a named chair and thus this sanction could not have been used.
8/21/2010 2:06 pm
Thanks, Judith, although I don’t see how revocation of tenure can be kept ‘confidential.’ After all the bloke will be expected to leave Harvard, and looking for a new job… if you’re Marc Hauser and you disappear from the uni with no announcement about your new position, people will assume your T-bird was taken away.
8/21/2010 2:12 pm
Quite right, sancts. One case that I think I may know about (it happened just as I arrived at Harvard, or very shortly before) was one where the person was old enough to take an “early retirement,” though I’m not sure if there was ever an official statement to that effect. What happens to a younger person who is still hale and hearty is probably that they “decide” they need more time for writing or something of that sort.
8/21/2010 4:25 pm
The “third statute” of the university is the provision for revoking tenure. As far as I know, it has been used only once in modern times- against a non FAS faculty member convicted of a serious crime. But at least two tenured FAS professors “voluntarily” resigned in face of charges that could have triggered the statue. One involved an egregious sexual harassment case in the 1980s. I am not aware of any revocation of tenure or forced resignation for scientific misconduct here. Anyone know of any?
8/21/2010 5:01 pm
Thansk for the information, Historian. I don’t suppose that the provision you mention is anywhere on line. It’s probably kept in a big musty ledger somewhere. The mere name of the “third statute” sounds quite terrifying.
The egregious sexual harassment case in the 1980s was the one that I was dimly recalling. I remember that this caused some difficulties for some of the professor’s former doctoral advisees, who didn’t quite know why they were being advised not to use that professor as a recommender in job searches and the like.
8/21/2010 5:29 pm
faculty would give their right arm for a year’s paid leave! obviously hauser was forced to take a year at no pay, it is just that the university is keeping the sanctions confidential.
8/21/2010 6:47 pm
No doubt this is a year of unpaid leave. What’s strange, though, is that Marc Hauser is still going to be teaching in the Extension School for one semester this year. I have trouble understanding that, because if you read the ads for the Extension School, the whole idea is that the courses are taught by distinguished faculty members. It seems a little uncomfortable to think of Hauser on deck there so soon after the formal investigation of his work.
I know he has a family with children, so he may need the money, but a one-year involuntary leave should be just that-not a leave with a loophole.
8/21/2010 7:53 pm
It is one of the curious things about Harvard that faculty are appointed subject to the Third Statute but are not given copies of that or any other statute. They are on the web, but in a corner so dark that Google doesn’t index it! Here they are,, in the Internet Archive version of a page from an old HSPH Handbook. Apparently they were posted one year and then removed the following year, but the Archive caught the delisted version. Don’t ask me why these are not a public document (being the by-laws of a corporation, I don’t believe there is any requirement to make them public).
Here is the relevant paragraph of the Third Statute. I include the whole para so you can see the difference between faculty and staff. As you can see, it’s all a question of what “grave misconduct” is.
All officers who hold teaching appointments, as defined from time to time by the Corporation with the consent of the overseers, are subject to removal from such appointments by the Corporation only for grave misconduct or neglect of duty. Officers who hold professional or administrative appointments are subject to removal from such appointments by the Corporation for grave misconduct or whenever, in its opinion, their duties are not satisfactorily discharged. The president shall establish policies setting forth the conditions of employment of the supporting staff. The Corporation may from time to time with the consent of the overseers adopt rules and procedures to carry out the purposes of the statute.
8/22/2010 3:59 am
Thanks, Harry. If anyone can find things in dark corners of the internet, you are the one.
8/22/2010 3:49 pm
As the Third Statute says, it is the Corporation which would have to act to rescind tenure. The last time I heard of the Corporation considering such a move, it was regard to Wendell Furry, Professor of Physics, who was under indictment for contempt of Congress for refusing to name names during the witch hunt of the early ’50s.
But there are more than a couple of cases over the last few decades in which the Dean of FAS “persuaded” a faculty member to resign “voluntarily”. Of course, all these are highly confidential. The Dean has several sanctions in his armory that can be very persuasive.
8/22/2010 7:15 pm
Warren, this is very helpful. And it accords with my hunches about how this may turn out.
Sancts, I forgot to say that I loved your reference to the T-bird being taken away. It’s probably fair to say that in this sorry story, nothing is “fun, fun, fun” any more on either side of the aisle.
8/22/2010 11:03 pm
Here is an article in the Crimson naming names, and stating that a professor in the Government Department did lose tenure as a result of sexual misconduct.
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2009/6/2/sexual-harassment-publicized-punished-in-80s/
8/22/2010 11:14 pm
When i read this, I felt ill. http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2007/6/4/poet-accused-of-harassment-students-in/ Did this article cause any comment when it appeared (2007)? What an appalling old boys club Harvard seems.
8/23/2010 2:24 am
Indeed, Alum, who ever would have expected Harvard of all places to be an old boys club?? Oh wait, I know: everyone in the entire country who didn’t go to Harvard. Yeesh.
8/23/2010 6:23 am
I know about the Government department case, but I was thinking of a case in another department entirely. In the 1980s, attitudes toward this kind of thing were very different, but I do feel tht Harvard has changed substantially since then.
Visiting professors, as in the Derek Walcott example, sometimes do feel that they can do what they want and not suffer repercussions,
I do think that the university has changed substantially since the 1980s. That doesn’t mean that it has suddenly become perfect-nor has the world outside Harvard-but there is a greater awareness of why sexual harassment is wrong, as well as provisions in place to help people deal with it.
But after this detour, I do hope that the discussion on this blog can get back to scientific/scholarly misconduct, which is where we started.
8/23/2010 8:17 am
Thanks Judith… I was just about to ask if we could get back on topic. It’s fine to talk about the Shleifer affair and sexual harassment cases, but here we have something different, something that goes to the heart of one of the two cores of the university, in this case the research core.
The Dean has written the faculty that a professor was found to be responsible for eight instances of scientific misconduct. One of my brothers- in- law is a scientist at a large Swiss pharmaceutical company. I asked him to look at this situation. The first thing he pointed out to me was that Professor Hauser’s quote in the NYT article said “I acknowledge that I made some significant mistakes” and that this is very different from scientific misconduct. He pointed out to me that scientific mistakes happen often and are most often simply corrected. Scientific misconduct happens rarely and is thought to be something done deliberately. I asked him what would happen in the real world if a scientist were found to be solely responsible for eight instances of scientific misconduct. He said the scientist would be immediately dismissed from his/her position. He said, “how could it be anything other than that. In the future, what scientific co-workers could possibly trust that person. Scientific experiments are all about finding out what is true and what is not true. If someone breaches scientific trust, he/she is gone. “
Harvard is a great university. It holds itself to a very high standard. It has centers dealing with ethics. It has classes dealing with ethics and moral values. It has prominent faculty who have spent their entire careers studying and teaching ethics.
Various people in the university are quick to jump on the debasement of ethical values in others. Where are they with regard to this incident?
Here we have the Dean speaking of scientific misconduct. This is not Larry provocatively postulating of the length of woman’s tails in the realm of “smarts.” (did biologist Nancy Hopkins swoon when she heard of this scientific misconduct?). In that brouhaha, faculty were speaking out incessantly (even if they hadn’t bothered to read Larry’s remarks). Why not now with so much more at stake?
Jim (or HL, RT, JR, WG), a question. If you were still at the university, what do you think “your” students would be saying about a professor having engaged in many instances of scientific misconduct ?
8/23/2010 9:17 am
Students had remarkably little interest in the Summers women/science remarks. I would be surprised if many students outside the discipline are getting educated about the Hauser situation.
Students focus on their peers and on their own academic programs. Unless a university leader proactively involves them in a conversation, they’re unlikely to tune in.
The Crimson drives whatever tuning-in does happen.
SE
8/23/2010 9:21 am
Feynman’s wonderful speech seems apropos here: http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.pdf
8/23/2010 10:17 am
Harvard does not have a university leader right now, SE. And the Crimson got its ass kicked on this story.
8/23/2010 12:14 pm
Fair enough; that’s your view, we know. I’m agnostic. But leadership on this ethical issue could emerge, and if it comes from anywhere but the top it’ll emerge on the op-ed page of the Crimson.
I was making a purely descriptive claim about student interest in this question. My surmise is that unless has a student has taken on of Prof Hauser’s classes he or she is quite unlikely to be up to speed on this story.
(In that light perhaps it was smart of Hauser to initiate this firestorm, via his e-mail, in August, before campus is populated.)
SE
8/23/2010 1:15 pm
SE makes a good point on the timing. The Boston Globe article was on August 10. So they got the tip on August 9, the Monday after Harvard Summer School ended and therefore probably the best day of the year to bury a story so the Harvard community won’t hear about it.
8/23/2010 1:17 pm
Yup, I think you’re right about student interest, and about Hauser’s preemptive strike. I’ve been wondering why he sent that email around when it was sure to be leaked, and your rationale of course makes sense.
I hope you’re right about leadership on this ethical issue emerging, because let’s face it, this one’s a no-brainer: If you can’t take a stand against scientific misconduct, what do you need—a triple murder?