(We noticed the story earlier here.)
The Chronicle of Higher Education has made public the substance of a document provided to Harvard. The author was a research assistant in Hauser’s labs. CHE is reporting the assistant’s version as though it is established truth. Perhaps there is another side. As things are now, it is not a pretty story.
An internal document, however, sheds light on what was going on in Mr. Hauser’s lab. It tells the story of how research assistants became convinced that the professor was reporting bogus data and how he aggressively pushed back against those who questioned his findings or asked for verification. …
The former research assistant, who provided the document on condition of anonymity, said his motivation in coming forward was to make it clear that it was solely Mr. Hauser who was responsible for the problems he observed. The former research assistant also hoped that more information might help other researchers make sense of the allegations. …
The experiment [which led students and research assistants to come together over the issues] tested the ability of rhesus monkeys to recognize sound patterns. …
Researchers watched videotapes of the experiments and “coded” the results, meaning that they wrote down how the monkeys reacted. As was common practice, two researchers independently coded the results so that their findings could later be compared to eliminate errors or bias. …
They then reviewed Mr. Hauser’s coding and, according to the research assistant’s statement, discovered that what he had written down bore little relation to what they had actually observed on the videotapes. He would, for instance, mark that a monkey had turned its head when the monkey didn’t so much as flinch. It wasn’t simply a case of differing interpretations, they believed: His data were just completely wrong.
As word of the problem with the experiment spread, several other lab members revealed they had had similar run-ins with Mr. Hauser, the former research assistant says. This wasn’t the first time something like this had happened. There was, several researchers in the lab believed, a pattern in which Mr. Hauser reported false data and then insisted that it be used.
I’ve omitted many of the details, which can be found on the CHE website. One of the important features is that they were investigating the capacities of monkeys to recognize sound patterns. That’s thought to be a component of language learning. The extent to which cognition is language based or language involving is right hugely important. IMHO.
Feminist Philosophers 