Harvard says psychology professor (author of book on right and wrong) fabricated data

[mike r]

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2010/08/marc-hauser-harvard-science-misconduct-/1

Harvard researcher Marc Hauser committed research misconduct in his studies of primate behavior, the university said Friday.

Earlier this month, the Boston Globe reported that Hauser, 50, the author of Moral minds: How nature designed a universal sense of right and wrong, a noted researcher in the roots of animal cognition, had been placed on leave following accusations by his students that he had purposely fabricated data in his research. His work relied on observing responses by tamarin monkeys to stimuli such as changes in sound patterns, claiming they possessed thinking skills often viewed as unique to humans and apes.

In a letter sent to Harvard faculty today, dean Michael Smith confirms a university investigation found "eight instances of scientific misconduct" by Hauser. A research paper has been retracted as a result of the finding, another corrected, and a Science paper has a correction under discussion; "five other cases" were also investigated, according to the letter...

[metapunditedgy]

1. Good for them exposing this. There is so much pressure on scientists

to compete, with funding cuts, dwindling career opportunities, etc. But this kind of stuff has no place in research.

What's harder to stop is the "white lies" where real data is interpreted over-generously... so much pressure to promote ones own results or else get lost in the shuffle.

[txlibdem]

2. Scientists make their career

not by "curing" diseases but by studying them.

Scientists seem to have figured out the game. Slow walk progress so you can get an entire 50 year career out of a discovery they should have been able to do in 10 years.

All they do is hunt for funding for their research, but if they found the answer while that funding is still active they won't get any money in the next round of funding. So we get a flurry of papers covering the minutia, proving and reproving, then disproving and then un-disproving this or that. It's like an ATM machine.

[Posteritatis]

3. Yes, yes, a handful of bad academics mean they're all in the Big Pharma Conspiracy

:tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:

[caraher]

4. You're painting with an awfully broad brush here

It is true that there are perverse incentives to purse "safe" lines of research, to bundle results in "minimum publishable" increments to create a steady stream of publications, etc.

But nobody in a field that actually gets funding can stretch 10 years' of research into 50 - science is WAY too competitive for that. It's all about being first, and the greater pressure is to publish prematurely. I hear scientists worry all the time about "getting scooped." I never hear anyone talk about how to slow the pace of research to milk a funding agency. Even when a research area is dying the response is generally either to tie one's work in with something that's "hot" or to reinvent oneself.

[txlibdem]

5. So I exaggerated things a bit, then?

You might be right. But an interesting last sentence to your post re if an area of research is dying. Put my tinfoil hat on for just one second and ask yourself WHY that area of research is dying. Two possibilities spring to my mind. 1. That research was useless or frivolous from the start and everyone in the funding community got collectively tired of throwing money down a rat hole. 2. A competing theory had already disproved that theory so funding is harder to get for a demonstrably false theory. Both of which could mean that researchers have milked that turd dry (it was never promising but they sold some suckers a bill of goods just to get a paycheck) or have been stretching promising research out to infinity just to ensure their cushy paycheck for decades to come (instead of finding the answer in just a few years as may have ordinarily been possible without feet dragging).

Now I'll set the tinfoil down and agree with your lament that science is too dependent on fickle funding and the political winds, whether from DC or the politics within the scientific community itself.

[Duppers]

9. the 2 scenarios you describe...

are less likely to be the problem. "Political winds" well describes the problem--not "useless or frivolous" or "a competing theory."

Funding is expensive and priorities change. One year a program/research is funded to the hilt but not the next year---then it's picked up again in 7 or 8 yrs. This has happened over & over to Mr. D.

[caraher]

10. One problem with the tinfoil hat view is that research is about uncertainty

Frequently the only way to find out an idea won't work is to pursue it. When a vein of research dries up, that's a good thing from the perspective of knowledge!

It's frustrating for the people who thought they had the Next Big Thing, but sometimes that's just how you find the blind alleys, and it's unrealistic to expect that every dime you drop in the slot machine will give you a payout. You do hope and expect that if you fund research at a suitable level, the overall payoff will be much better than what you get in Vegas, and I think the record is quite good on that point.

And that brings up something else - internal motivation, which should never be underestimated in science. Every working scientist has a skill set that could pay off far more lavishly used in a different field - say, developing the kinds complex financial instruments that made their makers and marketers rich but ruined the economy. And those same skills means they are also well-aware that they are almost certainly NOT maximizing their own personal wealth. No scientist wants to "milk a turd" because knowingly doing so would be intensely dissatisfying - it would run counter to every internal motivation they might have (and to be sure, these run from an intense desire for knowledge to a thirst for prestige and approval - I'm not claiming scientists are saints!).

I've no doubt that sometimes scientists do wind up "milking turds," but 99% of the time it's either because they don't yet see it as a turd (we all have blind spots) or because they need to finish what they started before moving on to something else (typically, they'll be trying to find ways to turn resources earmarked for the dead-end project into a springboard for the next thing).

[Duppers]

8. Amen!

:thumbsup:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

6. This is the science forum.

You're looking for the 9-11 forum.

[txlibdem]

12. Some of us actually love Science

And seeing the corruption of the system sickens me to no end. You can think that each and every scientist is living in a bubble of purity, safe from the corrupting influence of Capitalism and the Greed Society that our country has become but I happen to prefer to live in reality.

I wish I could regain the innocence of my youth, regain my belief (my faith) that scientists were the one group that were not corrupted by greed and evil Capitalism. Sadly I cannot. Please educate me with stories of the selfless dedicated scientists to counter the poison of year after year of seeing scientists committing fraud, manipulation, theft of others' ideas, etc., that has so tainted my impression of how true Science has fared in this sick, twisted Capitalist nightmare we are all living in.

So go ahead and flame me or defame me or take my name in vain but I know that between the two of us I am the one who loves science more.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

13. I doubt your sincerity.

You're anti-science.

[txlibdem]

14. I doubt your sincerity

You're anti science because you want to continue a corrupt system that removes all incentive to do actual science and replaces it with incentives only to produce results that will make some company a bunch of money. The arbitrary requirement that scientists must publish "X" number of papers a year or lose their job/funding is idiotic. Quality should trump quantity but that isn't the case. The entire system is corrupted by Capitalist-style management and production line thinking. Science is in real trouble in this country and all you can do is call someone a name.

Don't shoot the messenger, my friend.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Duppers]

7. the scientists I personally know have more integrity than

what you describe.

[deutsey]

11. You know, it's irony on a base level, but I like it.---Bill Hicks n/t