Is this Hauser thing that damaging?
| 19 August, 2010 | Adie Chan |
34
|
|
A bombshell revelation in The Chronicle of Higher Education today pertaining to the somewhat mysterious case of Harvard evolutionary psychologist Marc Hauser and his alleged academic wrongdoing: junior researchers in Hauser’s lab are accusing the well-known scientist and book author of intentionally doctoring his data on monkey behavior to fit with his theories about the roots of pattern recognition extending beyond humans to other limbs of the primate family tree.
Ever since Harvard University’s investigation of Hauser and the professor’s temporary leave from the school’s Cognitive Evolution Laboratory, mainstream and science media outlets have feasted on the story. The New York Times and (of course) The Boston Globe have been tracking developments as closely as have Nature and the science blogosphere.
My question is why?
I mean, yes, I get it that if the allegations coming from research assistants and grad students who worked with Hauser are true, then it paints a pretty stomach-churning portrait of the renowned biologist that has the potential to sully the entire scientific enterprise in the eyes of some. And I understand that Hauser was receiving federal funding (our tax dollars!) to do his work, so if in fact he did fudge data to fit preconceived notions, he did it on our dime. Sure, that’s infuriating.
I even appreciate the potential scientific value of Hauser’s line of inquiry. Contrary to what some members of the public might think, doing this type of behavioral work with our primate evolutionary cousins is incredibly valuable to honing humanity’s sense of what exactly it means to behave and think like a human.
But is Hauser’s alleged malfeasance really that damaging outside the realm of academic science? I mean, he was studying monkey behavior after all.
When names like Charles Nemeroff and Andrew Wakefield are mentioned, I can understand the widespread sense of anger and frustration that is evoked. These researchers allegedly engaged in research misconduct that could (and likely did) do real harm to thousands (millions?) of people. Their stories of apparent clinical research fraud should be told over and over and remembered by a wide swath of the public, the scientific community included.
And to be sure, the Hauser story does make good reading. He was a prominent research who is facing some pretty serious charges from within his own lab. As one commenter on the Chronicle‘s piece wrote: “What is extraordinary here is the courage and integrity of the students in the lab.” When more information about this whole protracted saga comes to light, it may make very good reading indeed, if just for David and Goliath overtones already coming into focus.
But still, is this case of alleged misconduct worthy of all the attention it’s getting? Is Schadenfreude at play here? Should we be looking instead at the subjective nature of the types of behavioral experiments that Hauser’s lab was undertaking as a contributor to the problem?
We’re interested to hear your thoughts!
Bob Grant – Associate Editor, The Scientist
Check out the poll! How does Hauser stack up against other cases?
Related Stories:
[14th July 2010]
[29th April 2010]
[2nd November 2009]
|
|
previous post
Yes, it does deserve the attention. Any large-scale case of scientific fraud deserves the spotlight, if only to deter people who may be tempted to tinker with their results.
The first case of it that I read about, Hendrik Schon, was while I was a post-graduate student and I felt literally sick. I simply couldn’t believe that someone would just make up their results!
I think the system needs to improve to make it easier for worried colleagues – especially more junior ones as in this case – to raise their concerns without feeling that they’ll lose out. There are enough stories of people who blew the whistle on their own supervisors who ended up never getting a PhD, even after years of work.
I don’t think it will impact science in the overall public view, however it is always damaging. The real issue is to teach students that once data points to disproving the original hypothesis, you modify the hypothesis not the data. So, if this case does demonstrate misconduct, that is the take home lesson here. However, at this point it is alleged and frankly we don’t know what goes on in that laboratory and what are the interactions amongst the different folks in the lab. So every one needs to hold on until ORI and Harvard gets done with their investigation.
Well said. Hauser is a very energetic & charismatic guy. Easy to get caught up in it. Kudos to the staff. Took some guts & ethics to do what they did.
As for the affect of the actual research on the world as we know it? Not so much. Pretty esoteric
It may not be damaging, but it is certainly worth attention. All scientists need to scrutinize themselves as well. By continuous exposure to more egregious forms of misconduct, we become aware of our own inherent biases and how they are the beginning of a slippery slope. For example, why do workers assume “I must have mixed the samples up” when the results contradict what they expect, but they never make the same statement when the results AGREE with what they expect. This kind of thinking is followed by willful blindness, and eventually large scale misconduct of the caliber reported above.
Good intellectual hygiene requires one to be especially careful in evaluating any information that seems to support what one wants to believe.
All deliberate attempts by scientists to mislead their fellow scientists and the public that supports them are to be condemned. We scientists rely on ethical behavior to maintain the pace of our scientific advances.
One also has to consider the students who were exposed to this. Will they give up science altogether thinking, based upon one bad apple, that all science is fraud? Will they continue but forever be jaded and uninspired? Hopefully not as science in its purest form is wonderful and exciting. Any discussion about whether this particular instance is more or less onerous (read the oppositie, more or less OK) may only make those students wonder anew about science. Let us be clear, misconduct of any kind that involves the alteration of the research data to fit one’s preconceived notions ranks as the highest offense regardless of the nature of the study.
Misconduct is misconduct, and it should be investigated no matter how large or small. The size of the investigation, and the attention given to it in the popular press, should be proportionate to the size of the problem. But all such things go on a logarithmic scale, Bernie Madoff’s $50 billion Ponzi scheme may not be 50,000 times as newsworthy as someone else’s $1 million scam.
Whistleblowing has to be supported, but we also have to wait until the investigation is final before we know if the whistleblowers can prove their case. Disgruntled employees can file false claims.
Intense scrutiny of all aspects of science, from outright data fabrication to subtle statistical reporting of significance levels of actual data, is what keeps science a respectable field. In the long run, uncovering and reporting on fraud is good for the profession.
Richard Rorty’s angry review of a book of Hauser’s back in 2006 (for the NYT) points to the reason this story is worth the attention it’s getting.
http://www.margaretsoltan.com/?s=rorty+hauser
Rorty’s complaint about the “exuberant triumphalism” of Hauser’s attitude toward his own work points to the problem of scientists rushing into massive claims about their experiments. They do this, one suspects, because they want money and attention more than scientific legitimacy.
All Americans have an interest in knowing about such people. After all, despite what you say in your blog post, the social implications of Hauser’s work with monkeys are massive, involving all sorts of policies relative to beliefs about our moral development.
Every case of alleged misconduct is serious, more so when it gets attention in the popular press (the allegations over Hauser have been followed by the New York Times and I assume elsewhere). The attention given to Hauser’s case seems particularly significant to me because of the interest in the general population in research about this kind of research.
I am a bit biased because I am deeply interested in evolutionary psychology and related research, including Hauser’s, and when I see something in the popular press about it, I eat it up. I know I’m not alone in this, and surely there are many other non-scientists who recognize Hauser’s name, associate it with the study of how brains work, the evolutionary roots of morality and social behavior, and the like. I feel sure that many such people will now wonder about the credibility of the whole field, not just a few articles coming from Hauser’s shop. Even if the allegations are not substantiated, it could be very damaging. I see this as good fodder for anti-science types who would love to mock research on monkey cognition as a waste of taxpayer money – “and look!” some member of Congress will cry, “they lie about it!”
The foundation of science is truth. If we cannot trust that the data is real, that it has not been manipulated, then any claim of science is diminished. Thus, to the extent that any forgery of the coin of the realm hurts the value of that coin, this does deserve attention. Once we say it doesn’t matter, where do you draw the line? And who knows what the value of a line of research will be in 20 years?
All science is by its nature is based on trust and honesty. When one deliberately misuses that trust to further one’s own agenda (“proving” one’s hypotheses rather than testing them) that is scientific malfeasance of the highest order, regardless of how few may be “harmed”. Absolutely this misbehavior deserves to be publicized. By the way, he was attempting to prove his hypotheses, not theories. Theories are based on a large accumulation of heavily supported data derived from extensive hypothesis testing, and capable of providing accurate predictions prior to testing (think evolution). I suspect that animal behavior, based primarily on observation, seldom if ever reaches the level of theory. Given the tenuous positions of grad students and postdocs they definitely demonstrated considerable courage to come forward on this matter, and are to be commended and protected.
Amen.
Bob –
I can’t help but think you are just playing devil’s advocate on this. I believe that you know that science is science and fraud is fraud, and it doesn’t matter if you study people, monkeys or fruit flies. Fraud compromises our profession, turns bright young (and elderly) minds away from science, and is fodder for those who don’t think science is worth public investment. I have no interest in convicting Hauser without knowing all the facts. Howver, assuming things are as they appear, the consequences of fraud in a monkey study may not have the consequences of fraud in a clinical study, but it has the same consequences for trust in science and scientists. Colleagues, reviewers, journal editors, and funding agencies should only have to worry about the quality of the research (e.g., design), not whether the results are real or not.
amen!
You ask the rhetorical question: “is this case of alleged misconduct worthy of all the attention it
When you limit the references to the absolutely necessary ones, the reviewrs get upset that ome ” seminal’ papers are not quoted- i.e., the author(s) did not review the literature well enough.
Science is not absolute truth; and as we understand that the results depend on the methods,/ experimental protocol ( including the purity of reagents/ drugs used, the source of cells used, the food that was fed to the animals and a huge number of factors) it is imperative that a researcher read these sections carefully before citing another’s work either to support or to explain their own results.Unfortunately, some prestigeous journals( Science, Nature) do not publish the experimental details ( which are absolutely needed for a lesser scientific persuit- the Patent application!).
I’m not a scientist but I am a naturalist and I understand that most research with animal behavior is certainly based primarily on observation using our own individual ‘human’ actions and reactions as a guideline. After all, we cannot get into the mind of anyone except self really.
Based on what can be scientifically gathered and then proven leaves much to be desired so far as concrete evidence since we know less about our own brains let alone the brain workings of any other animal to make an absolute judgement. And with regard to Hauser’s ‘How the Brain Works’, in the final analysis, one can ONLY make a final conclusion based on the foggiest of present knowns which is woefully little.
I myself can claim, and I do, that even the partial statement: ” ………..behavioral work with our primate evolutionary cousins is incredibly valuable to honing humanity
The American public already has a distrust of science. This only serves to cement the anti-science perspective in this country, and with each such “revelation” there will be increasing repercussions for areas of science that have nothing to do with Hauser’s research area. Especially in the current political-economic environment, it may well be that the stories about Hauser will lead to drastic reductions in both public and congressional enthusiasm for taxpayer support of any kind of scientific endeavor in this country (those of you whose work is supported by NIH, NSF, USDA or other Federal agencies, take note). And there will be political public policy repercussions that go even beyond Federal funding for scientific research. After all, if Hauser can’t be trusted to do honest science, then why should the public, or the legislators, trust the scientists who say that there is global warming? Or that, if there is global warming, its cause is due to human activity? Why should the public or the legislators trust scientists who think genetically-engineered crops and farm animals are safe for human consumption? Why should the public or legislators trust biomedical researchers who pooh-pooh homeopathy and other “alternative medicine” approaches to life-threatening diseases? Why should the public trust scientists like Jane Lubchenko who assure us that the oil in the Gulf of Mexico is already practically all gone and no longer an ecological danger?
As one of those worried non-scientists, I agree. But don’t assume the worry amounts to naive anti-science. Two questions need to be addressed a bit more frankly then in the past. (1) Do our scientific institutions create too many incentives for bad science? (2) Is science getting into areas where natural phenomena are so inherently chaotic or complex that science simply cannot make very strong explanatory or predictive statements (at least not without some fundamentally new tools)? As depressing as it may be, the answer to both may be “yes.” In fact, each of the examples you cite is a an area in which both these problems are evident. In that case, our trust level *ought* to be lower, no? (Yes, my argument is overstated in order to make it short)
The subject of the article is behaviousal science. While at school and throughout my career I have repeatedly been surprised by the power of personality displayed by academic and industrial leaders. A dissenter needs, not only to be brave, but to understand how he/she has been more or less surrepticiously conditioned to feel inadequate.
I am troubled by the allegations for a variety of reasons. I have always held Hauser in the highest esteem and enjoy books, articles and interviews involving me. From that perspective the stories create sort of an Emperor’s new robe dilemma. I hate having my icons shatter but….
I have not seen any veracity there yet. All the Hauser stories I have come across are hints and hearsay. I would rather have an idol throttled AFTER a fair trial or be let free.
Harvard is too closed mouth about something I think they should be more forthcoming about.
um…Freudian slip I supposed. That was supposed to say “…enjoy books, articles and interviews involving HIM.” 9not me). Note to self, edit first, send later.
Well, Hauser (if this is true) is not the first and will not be the last. Galen did the same thing and set back anatomy by 1400 years. And When Vesalius said Galen was wrong, he was shamed out of medicine.
Kudos to the staff, it takes guts to question the boss, and not to mention, not to share in his “glory”, and the resultant perks, more money, prestige, and a Chair is some educational institution.
addendum: And I might add, unless the experiment can be indepentedly confirmed, be very cautious.
ron hansing
This is big news because Hauser is (was) a hot shot. How the mighty are fallen is a classic Jungian script. Everybody loves to hear about it. A transgression that would be mostly ignored if committed by a nobody becomes a public marvel if committed by someone of high status. The popular news media understand this instinctively. OK, enough warmed-over Montaigne!
Sure coding in this type of study is a ‘subjective’ process–if that means coders have to use their judgment with respect to complex stimulii; there are no mechanical meter readings involved here.
But surely there should have been more coders than the PI (potentially with a vested interest in some kinds of results) and one graduate assistant–and preferably people not involved with the project but trained to recognize what was theoretically interesting? And, surely, there should have been prior sessions for training purposes only to identify erratic coding and to iron out what was, and was not, a theoretically relevant observation? And surely there should have been inter coder reliability scores reported….etc etc….
At best this is very sloppy method, particularly when the issues being addressed are widely important and interesting….It would be pardonable for a graduate seminar research paper, but hardly for a major researcher making major claims of very wide interest…..As such it LOOKS like scientific hubris on the part of a researcher refusing to accept the possibility of null findings…. If he deliberately lied, he should be fired. If he didn’t, he should be required to take–and pass– a good, introductory methods class. But who’s to say which is the case?
This is a sad story. In my opinion, Hauser was perhaps tempted by the university economics of immediate beneficial outcomes. This is the “McDonald’s Fast-Food Model” to paraphrase the words of one British historian Anthony Grafton
Gentlemen:
Since Geoff Pullum has recently shown, there are loads of regular expressions, languages, and finite state systems that no non-human could ever compute, why all the fuss over whether primates can do some primative calculating in this low power associative zone of computing? What would be nice to know is whether a money could substract 14 from 29? If they could do THAT with no upper end, even if restricted to positive numbers for substraction strings, then they would demonstrate CF power, since that simple arithmetical set of equation strings needs center embedding rules – two of them. So, for the time being, except for the general design need for closure on reliability measurements for data coders, this pretty much is much to do about nothing. Hey, at least Marc has tenure.
Hugh Buckingham
This premise only makes sense if one assumes that the research is of little consequence also. Is this the case? If so I agree that this is no big deal since the research is no big deal. If this is true, why was he spending my tax dollars on something that’s ‘no big deal.?’
Is this Hauser thing that damaging? Yes, it is, and your soft pedaling it (it;s only monkey’s)is nearly as bad.
The amount of press attention paid to scientific misconduct ironically reflects the high esteem in which scientists are held by the general public. The public expects the highest standards of ethics from scientists, since the central part of our job is the search for truth. When scientists violate that sacred trust, the public regards it as a breach of ethics that’s on a par with religious clergy practicing pedophilia (and we’ve all seen how much press THAT generates).