Update on 20 August: Harvard confirms misconduct by morality researcher
IN THE field of animal cognition there are few bigger names than Marc Hauser. This Harvard professor has not only produced exciting findings but has also successfully communicated his research through the media and popular books such as Wild Minds: What animals really think. He is also well known for his ideas about the origin of morality.
The news that there has been a three-year investigation into alleged misconduct in his lab (see 鈥淗arvard star in misconduct probe over monkey minds鈥�) is shocking, and will inevitably harm the reputation of a vibrant field.
Advertisement
Sadly, as 快猫短视频 went to press, the damage was being compounded by Harvard鈥檚 reluctance to reveal the conclusions of its investigation, which was reportedly completed months ago.
To what extent was there misconduct, if there was any at all? And if there was, who was responsible? How many papers from the lab were flawed?
鈥淭o what extent was there misconduct, if there was any at all? How many papers were flawed?鈥�
These are central questions and, until they are answered, a spectre of doubt will haunt an entire body of work. Colleagues are unsure what to believe, which is grim for the many researchers who have trained in Hauser鈥檚 lab or collaborated with him.
鈥淚t鈥檚 very bad for everyone,鈥� says at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, a former graduate student at Harvard who wrote two papers on wild chimpanzee behaviour with Hauser.
Harvard鈥檚 line is that it cannot reveal the conclusion of its investigation until the case has been reviewed by the federal agencies that funded the work. 鈥淎t the conclusion of the federal investigatory process, in cases where the government concludes scientific misconduct occurred, the federal agency makes those findings publicly available,鈥� said a university statement.
That could take years. Harvard鈥檚 caution may reflect a fear of legal action. However, within days of about the investigation, the university had been pressured into confirming there were problems with at least three papers, one of which is being retracted. With researchers clamouring to know more about the probe, the sensible thing would be for Hauser and Harvard to agree that it is now in everyone鈥檚 interest to release a summary of the investigation鈥檚 findings. It is hard to see how Hauser- who is on leave for a year and has yet to speak publicly about the affair- is being well served by the official silence. 鈥淩umours are worse than the real details,鈥� argues one journal editor, who learned of the case in January this year, when a peer-reviewer suggested that one of Hauser鈥檚 papers should be summarily rejected in light of the investigation.
Responding to allegations of misconduct is inevitably painful, prolonged and expensive; a paper in PLoS Medicine estimates the direct costs of one recent investigation at $525,000 (). The indirect cost in terms of trust in science is impossible to calculate.
Prevention is always better than cure. Thankfully, many institutions are boosting efforts to educate young scientists in research ethics, setting standards for data analysis and presentation that steer well clear of anything that could be construed as misconduct.
The affair goes to the heart of what makes science special: scepticism and openness. For three years, Harvard has cast a sceptical eye over the work of the Hauser laboratory. Now is the time for candour.