This seems sad, but inevitable. At the very least, it seems clear that Hauser has been cutting corners for a long time, and finally crashed.
Harvard’s correct response stands notably in contrast with the foot-dragging of GMU in the Wegman case, where no ruling has emerged after more than a year, even though there is ample evidence of plagiarism and worse.
“Harvard’s correct response stands notably in contrast with the foot-dragging of GMU in the Wegman case, where no ruling has emerged after more than a year, even though there is ample evidence of plagiarism and worse.”
From the linked piece:
“Last August, facing media scrutiny, Faculty of Arts and Sciences Dean Michael D. Smith confirmed an internal investigation had found Hauser “solely responsible for eight counts of scientific misconduct.—
And from the piece linked therein:
“Faculty of Arts and Sciences Dean Michael D. Smith publicly confirmed for the first time in a letter to the Faculty that a committee had found psychology professor Marc D. Hauser “solely responsible” for eight instances of scientific misconduct in his laboratory.
“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,” Smith wrote.
Hauser, the author of “Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong” whose research focuses on the cognitive function of primates, came under public scrutiny last week after a three-year internal investigation found evidence of scientific misconduct.”
Harvard takes four years and this reflects badly on GMU for having taken a year so far?
@JQ: I didn’t have in mind the falsification of data, but other kinds of academic misconduct (e.g., plagiarism)…. I believe there’s been some discussion of pertinent cases over the years at CT.
P O’Neill 07.20.11 at 8:56 am:
‘At least he won’t pull a Monckton and claim to be a member of a body which he’s not’
IMO; Monckton’s phony membership is an important subliminal signifier for Americans eager to privilege a myopic view of climate change. Thus saith the Lord.
Cian and Barry, if you’re lumping Hauser in with Evolutionary Psychologists like Buss, Tooby, Cosmides, and Pinker, you’re making a big mistake. Hauser, who’s early work was interesting and sound (I think this probably doomed him, as he developed a reputation that was very difficult to live up to), is an evolutionary psychologist in a much broader sense than Buss, et al. The latter group is all about the EEA and stone age minds, with poorly done survey research, experiments with no bearing on their research questions, etc. Hauser’s sort does traditional comparative research, draws precisely the sorts of conclusions that comparative psychology has been drawing since well befor any of our grandparents were born, and calls itself, occasionally, “evolutionary psychology” largely, I think, to rescue evolution in psychology from the fools who have been trying to co-opt it for the last 20+ years.
I notice that one of Hauser’s opponents, and the main person willing to talk to the Crimson, was Gordon Gallup:
“Ultimately it’s not a question of whether he can replicate his findings—it’s whether other people can,†said Gordon G. Gallup Jr., a psychology professor at University at Albany, State University of New York who has publicly questioned Hauser’s body of research.
{ 15 comments }
John Quiggin 07.20.11 at 3:49 am
This seems sad, but inevitable. At the very least, it seems clear that Hauser has been cutting corners for a long time, and finally crashed.
Harvard’s correct response stands notably in contrast with the foot-dragging of GMU in the Wegman case, where no ruling has emerged after more than a year, even though there is ample evidence of plagiarism and worse.
Daniel Nexon 07.20.11 at 4:55 am
Harvard’s “correct response” should also be extended to academics units outside of FAS. Just sayin’.
John Quiggin 07.20.11 at 6:10 am
Can you explain this for the benefit of ignorant antipodeans, Dan?
P O'Neill 07.20.11 at 8:56 am
At least he won’t pull a Monckton and claim to be a member of a body which he’s not …
Tim Worstall 07.20.11 at 9:05 am
This is very good John, very good indeed:
“Harvard’s correct response stands notably in contrast with the foot-dragging of GMU in the Wegman case, where no ruling has emerged after more than a year, even though there is ample evidence of plagiarism and worse.”
From the linked piece:
“Last August, facing media scrutiny, Faculty of Arts and Sciences Dean Michael D. Smith confirmed an internal investigation had found Hauser “solely responsible for eight counts of scientific misconduct.—
And from the piece linked therein:
“Faculty of Arts and Sciences Dean Michael D. Smith publicly confirmed for the first time in a letter to the Faculty that a committee had found psychology professor Marc D. Hauser “solely responsible” for eight instances of scientific misconduct in his laboratory.
“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,” Smith wrote.
Hauser, the author of “Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong” whose research focuses on the cognitive function of primates, came under public scrutiny last week after a three-year internal investigation found evidence of scientific misconduct.”
Harvard takes four years and this reflects badly on GMU for having taken a year so far?
Cian 07.20.11 at 9:21 am
And he’s an evolutionary psychologist. Something about that field.
Daniel Nexon 07.20.11 at 2:26 pm
@JQ: I didn’t have in mind the falsification of data, but other kinds of academic misconduct (e.g., plagiarism)…. I believe there’s been some discussion of pertinent cases over the years at CT.
grackle 07.20.11 at 3:12 pm
RE: Daniel Nixon – A certain well-known law professor comes to mind.
Barry Freed 07.20.11 at 3:44 pm
And he’s an evolutionary psychologist. Something about that “field“.
FTFY.
Jim Buck 07.20.11 at 3:56 pm
P O’Neill 07.20.11 at 8:56 am:
‘At least he won’t pull a Monckton and claim to be a member of a body which he’s not’
IMO; Monckton’s phony membership is an important subliminal signifier for Americans eager to privilege a myopic view of climate change. Thus saith the Lord.
Chris 07.21.11 at 7:48 pm
Cian and Barry, if you’re lumping Hauser in with Evolutionary Psychologists like Buss, Tooby, Cosmides, and Pinker, you’re making a big mistake. Hauser, who’s early work was interesting and sound (I think this probably doomed him, as he developed a reputation that was very difficult to live up to), is an evolutionary psychologist in a much broader sense than Buss, et al. The latter group is all about the EEA and stone age minds, with poorly done survey research, experiments with no bearing on their research questions, etc. Hauser’s sort does traditional comparative research, draws precisely the sorts of conclusions that comparative psychology has been drawing since well befor any of our grandparents were born, and calls itself, occasionally, “evolutionary psychology” largely, I think, to rescue evolution in psychology from the fools who have been trying to co-opt it for the last 20+ years.
herr doktor bimler 07.21.11 at 8:00 pm
I notice that one of Hauser’s opponents, and the main person willing to talk to the Crimson, was Gordon Gallup:
That would be this Gordon Gallup. Also.
Bill Benzon 07.22.11 at 9:58 am
John Wilkins with a moderate and compassionate view of Hauser:
http://evolvingthoughts.net/2011/07/on-hauser/
Jonathan Mayhew 07.22.11 at 11:51 pm
That apology, Bill, is so full of weasel language it makes my stomach turn.
Cian O'Connor 07.23.11 at 8:43 am
Chris. Oh okay, thanks.
Comments on this entry are closed.