MonkeyGate Continues
Posted on August 30th, 2010 in Uncategorized | 20 Comments »
Harvard and Marc Hauser got hit with more bad press over the weekend, when Nicholas Wade in the Times followed up on this blog and the journal Cognition by reporting that Hauser “may have fabricated research.”
The article essentially rewrites an editor’s note in Cognition.
“Given the published design of the experiment, my conclusion is that the control condition was fabricated,” said Gerry Altmann, the editor of the journal Cognition, in which the experiment was published.
(The Globe has the same story here.)
Of course, the suggestion that Hauser fabricated data was first made here, on August 19th, in response to the Chronicle of Higher Education piece reporting on discontent in Hauser’s lab.
The obvious implication: Hauser fabricated his results.
As Wade points out, there were plenty of alarm bells that people at Harvard should have noticed long ago:
Scientists trying to assess Dr. Hauser’s oeuvre are likely to take into account another issue besides the eight counts of misconduct. In 1995, Dr. Hauser published that cotton-top tamarins, the monkey species he worked with, could recognize themselves in a mirror. The finding was challenged by the psychologist Gordon Gallup, who asked for the videotapes and has said that he could see no evidence in the monkey’s reactions for what Dr. Hauser had reported. Dr. Hauser later wrote in another paper that he could not repeat the finding.
What Wade doesn’t point out: That possibly falsified paper was written before Hauser received tenure from Harvard.
The Crimson, meanwhile, reported that Hauser is definitely still teaching at the Extension School.
Which means that the first course a Crimson reporter should sign up for this fall is at the Extension School.
Dean of Continuing Education and University Extension Michael J. Shinagel confirmed with the University that it was “appropriate” for Hauser, whose research sits at the intersection between cognitive neuroscience and evolutionary biology, to teach at the Extension School this year, according to Extension School spokeswoman Linda A. Cross. She added that it is “not uncommon for teachers on leave from [the Faculty of Arts and Sciences] for various reasons” to teach at the Extension School.
About which a few things should be said.
1) Why does the extension school have a spokeswoman? That’s just silly.
2) If there were ever a case in which the dean should stand up and be counted, rather than offering a “statement” through a spokeswoman…
3) No, it’s not appropriate for someone in the middle of the most serious scientific scandal in years to teach at the Extension School. That’s not even close.
“One view of teaching is that you are an ambassador for the science you are teaching and for the institution at which you are teaching,” Gerry Altmann, the editor-in-chief of Cognition, a scientific journal which recently retracted an article Hauser published in 2002, wrote in an e-mail. “I personally do not believe that someone who is found guilty of misconduct is ambassador material.”
Isn’t it embarrassing for Harvard that outsiders must make such an obvious point?
Meanwhile, Drew Faust helped freshmen pick energy-efficient light bulbs out of a bin. (See the last photo in the slideshow here.)
Apparently the lights are on, but….
20 Responses
8/30/2010 10:16 am
I agree that Harvard is doing a terrible PR job in handling this situation. Faust looks weak and ineffective to truly lead in a crisis. The Harvard Extension School is diluting an Ivy League brand Mickey Mouse style. While I do not know Dr. Hauser, I find it obscene that he is being coddled by colleagues in the media. His actions will have significant repercussions that affect many people, institutions, and possibly scientific research. When it comes to scamming federal money, all it takes is one bad apple to ruin the lot.
Since Harvard leads the pack, one repercussion that will probably follow from the scandal is increased oversight and scrutiny over how research money is used for all universities and research institutions. Once a comprehensive assessment determines just how many millions of dollars of taxpayer money were wasted to front Hauser’s fraudulent research and career, it’ll increase the bureaucratic red tape and politics to get money for competent research that much harder.
8/30/2010 2:18 pm
RT,JR,HL,WG, please correct me if I’m wrong on this.
Is it true, the the FAS faculty votes on the list of courses taught, and the instructors who teach those courses, at the Extension School.
If this is so (and again, perhaps I’m wrong), why would the FAS faculty allow an instructor, whose dean says is responsible for scientific misconduct, to teach?
8/30/2010 3:20 pm
We voted on the 2010-11 Extension courses last May, Sam, obviously long before any of the details were known, and have not met as a Faculty since. Harry is also right to say that we do not know anything about the circumstances around Prof. Hauser’s leave from FAS (limited to the current academic year, as we have been told), so would not, as a faculty, have a basis for revisiting authorization of this year’s extension classes.
As a long-time FAS and Extension School instructor (where I taught your good wife, Sam), I particularly regret the impression made by the current situation, but have very good reason to think it has not been occasioned by a contempt for HES on the part of Deans Smith or Shinagel.
I plan to discuss the situation with this semester’s Extension Latin class on Tacitus’ Dialogus de Oratoribus.
8/30/2010 4:07 pm
RT,
You did indeed teach my good wife Latin at the Extension School and your courses were, according to her, among the best she ever took. Veramente!
What I fail to understand is this and I’m looking at this as a matter of principle, not only at this particular situation.
If a professor has had his dean say that he is responsible for scientific misconduct, why is that professor allowed to teach pending resolution of the issues? Doesn’t prudence dictate that his teaching assignments “be deferred?”
And I clearly don’t understand why the faculty does not have a basis for revisiting authorization.
It is my understanding that the faculty is not very organized. At least that is what I’ve heard over a long period of time from many people, including lots of faculty.The overwhelming majority of the faculty don’t give a damn about anything with regard to administration; they’re just interested in their own little area. You, HL, JR, WG (to cite those contributing here) are the exceptions. Just look at the attendance at faculty meetings, even for the most important issues. Address the issue of tenure and that would change the numbers substantially:)
But doesn’t scientific misconduct cut to the heart of the university and if it does, doesn’t that call for faculty to take action to protect the integrity of the academy? As Richard said in another post ” If you can’t take a stand against scientific misconduct, what do you need—a triple murder?”
If your dean writes the faculty the letter that he did, how can the faculty allow this professor to teach? If certain faculty complained about Shleifer (but not vociferously enough at faculty meetings or I should say, not enough faculty did), shouldn’t this be a slam dunk with no excuses for inaction.
Again, I’m saying this as an outsider, but as an outsider, this incident, again to use Richard’s phrase, looks like “monkeygate”, with the faculty unwilling to be engaged, summertime or not. It should be an interesting first faculty meeting. Basta.
8/30/2010 4:37 pm
I disagree with very little of this, Sam, but a) there is no regularly scheduled faculty meeting (anywhere in the country, I would say) between May and September (our next one is early October); b) we do not, and will not then, have a basis for revisiting, which doesn’t mean questions can’t be asked.
I wish Prof. Hauser was not teaching in the Extension School this term but, again, we don’t know the details/conditions around his leave from FAS, so lack, and will continue to lack, a factual basis to decide he should be barred from doing so.
8/30/2010 4:43 pm
RT—Sounds like you have a basis for revisiting, but not a mechanism….
8/30/2010 4:45 pm
Which is to say, isn’t the dean’s letter sufficient basis? You know there’s misconduct for which, in Hauser’s own words, he takes sole responsibility.
Yes, we’d all like the details, but are they truly necessary?
8/30/2010 4:45 pm
This might be a naive question, but seeing that Extension students pay for each class, and the course is described as quite popular, could it be (in part) about the money?
8/30/2010 5:12 pm
Look, I wish there was not the appearance of a double standard here, but we again don’t know the basis for the non-teaching in FAS, so there is right now neither the basis nor the mechanism, Richard.
8/30/2010 5:13 pm
The Faculty could not prevent an individual professor from teaching when the dean had determined to allow it. That is an administrative, not Faculty matter. The Faculty approves the courses, not the instructors, who not infrequently have not even been determined when the catalog is approved. The Faculty does not have the authority to sanction its members in that way. Even the Faculty committee that investigates and reports to the dean about allegations of professional misconduct does not determine or even make recommendations about sanctions.
8/30/2010 5:21 pm
I’ve already expressed my concerns about allowing Marc Hauser to teach in the Extension School while the government’s investigations are still proceeding. People seem to have different opinions about that.
The Greybook doesn’t actually say what sanctions should result from a finding of professional misconduct. It does say that the person accused of the misconduct should have a chance to respond, and that the report, together with that response, then go to the Dean. But the Greybook remains silent about the nature of the sanctions that may be applied; It simply says: “The Dean shall then take whatever action he or she considers appropriate.”
There may, however, be precedents. These are mainly confidential, but in some cases we have a fair idea of what happened. We know, for example, that Shleifer and Weitzman each lost their named chair (the one for klatrge-scale financial malfeasance in Russia, the other for stealing a truckload of manure from a neighboring farm, There may have been other sanctions applied as well, but we don’t know. Similarly, the plagiarism cases seem to have been relatively mildly handled. Again, we don’t know the full details (or at least, I don’t). Only a tiny number of people know what happened in the egregious sexual harrassment cases (I can only guess).
The Dean stated in his letter on the Hauser case that he will establish a committee to look into the current provisions in cases of professional misconduct. The question of sanctions may be part of that mandate, though of course I have no idea what charge he intends to give that committee. In any event, he has made it clear that the committee will look forward rather than revisit the Hauser case, where procedures already in place were quite rightly the ones that CPC and the Dean followed.
8/30/2010 5:22 pm
Judith again: I mistyped “large” in “large-scale” above. Sorry.
8/30/2010 7:01 pm
As Harry has pointed out, we don’t know the inside story, but as RB has emphasized, Hauser’s still being able to teach in the Extension School looks terrible. What does the outside world see? Hauser has been found guilty of scientific misconduct by a Harvard committee. Apparently as a result of this, he is on leave from his regular duties, not teaching courses or supervising students in the College or the GSAS. But nonetheless he is teaching in Extension. In addition to the moral objections to this, it looks like an enormous disrespect of the Extension School by the FAS authorities.
My suspicion is that this was forced on Dean Shinagel, hence his unwillingness to do more than issue a short statement. By the way, RB is being unnecessarily snarky about the “spokeswoman”. Ms. Cross is simply the person responsible for media and public relations for the Division of Continuing Education, i.e., the Extension School and the Summer School. Let me remind RB that both the Extension School and the Summer School do extensive advertising for enrollments, so of course they need someone to be in charge of those efforts. As far as I know, her job has not usually involved making statements to the press; but she was just the obvious staff person dragooned into doing so on this issue.
8/30/2010 9:21 pm
I think the bottom line lesson of this mess is that secrecy is a very awkward posture in academia. Early transparency about stuff that is likely to come out anyway is tactically smart (when Harvard turned the data over to the journal editor, did it not realize that the editor would tell the world what Harvard had been unwilling to say?) as well as ethically recommended (we serve the public interest and the public has a right to know what we are doing). It is very hard to have a coordinated program of limited information flows on a matter like this.
Sam asks why my colleagues and I are not ranting. The answer is that we know too little. We shouldn’t foam at the mouth over the magic word “misconduct” without knowing what it entailed. (Read Harvey Silverglate’s Three Felonies a Day for some hair raising examples of how little even the dreadful term “felony” can signify. I am not in favor of felons or felonies. But one of my friends is a felon, and knowing that doesn’t automatically make me think he shouldn’t be allowed to teach young people. It all depends on the facts, and in that case I know the facts, and anybody who did, including the institution that granted him tenure, wouldn’t worry about this particular felony.) By the same token we also don’t know enough to praise the university for what it may have done very effectively. So we scratch our heads and say it makes us very uncomfortable but we wish we knew more. The alternative would be simply to remain silent, but both as institutional citizens and as believers in the university’s public responsibilities, we can’t do that either.
All this is an argument for bias in favor of letting stuff be known unless there is a specific reason to keep it secret, rather than the opposite. (And there may be — if the funding agencies demand that, for example. But if so, why couldn’t Harvard have simply said the the Globe on day 1, “We will have nothing to say, at the request of the NIH which is doing its own investigation”?) So while this case is a PR nightmare, it is more than that — it is an object lesson in the cost of secrecy.
8/30/2010 9:56 pm
Well put, Harry. If I might add a point of information, which leads away from Warren’s speculation, individual faculty members propose courses directly to the Extension School, and neither Deans of FAS nor Chairs of FAS departments are involved in the process.
Prof. Hauser clearly followed this process back in the spring, and the Extension School would rightly have been as eager to sign him up as it was unaware that there was any issue involved — as the rest of us were until the Globe story broke.
8/30/2010 11:12 pm
Best outcome, sad to say:
http://dceweb.harvard.edu/prod/sswckce.taf?function=search&wgrp=EXT&crn=13654&view=avail
8/31/2010 12:40 am
That link doesn’t seem to be working right now, RT. Maybe it will snap back in the morning.
8/31/2010 12:47 am
The Extension School site goes down for maintenance in the wee hours, Judith. Prof. Hauser’s courses have been cancelled.
8/31/2010 8:17 am
Wow! Fascinating.
8/31/2010 9:17 am
Warren-My apologies to Ms. Cross. Longtime readers of this blog will know that the proliferation of press secretaries across Harvard has been a peeve of mine, but it sounds like I was unfair this time. Mea culpa.