Wow. After days of various speculation and reports from multiple new sources, Dean (Mike) Smith of the Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences has made an announcement regarding the investigation of Marc Hauser. The opening paragraph is the key:
"No dean wants to see a member of the faculty found responsible for scientific misconduct, for such misconduct strikes at the core of our academic values. Thus, it is with great sadness that I confirm that Professor Marc Hauser was found solely responsible, after a thorough investigation by a faculty investigating committee, for eight instances of scientific misconduct under FAS standards. The investigation was governed by our long-standing policies on professional conduct and shaped by the regulations of federal funding agencies. 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."
Rather than reproduce the whole letter here, I can point you to Harvard Magazine, or Science. Mike also discusses the Harvard process and the reason for confidentiality in such cases. I'm glad to see this come out, and I can imagine the difficulties Mike had in deciding to produce such a letter. (As I have stated previously in this blog, I have great respect for Mike Smith, who was in the office next to me before getting proverbially kicked upstairs, and I'm very happy that someone of his talents is serving as Dean of FAS). On the other hand, it's a sad day for Harvard, and arguably science more generally.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
So the lesson is: publish fake results, get tenure, get a slap on the wrist. Got it.
8 instances of scientific misconduct. would that get me a tenured position at harvard? i'd love it! i'll even take a couple of years of leave if that will make it ok.
Harvard looks worse than Hauser. The world is full of frauds and cheats. Harvard gave one tenure. That speaks very, very badly for Harvard's tenure process (lest I be accused of envy - I'm a Harvard grad).
Dean Smith's justification for why the report has to be kept confidential is weak. He identifies two interests: "anonymity of investigating committee members" and "integrity of the government investigation". However it's not clear why releasing the committee's final report, with the committee member's names redacted, would jeopardize either of these interests.
Personally, I suspect the real reason for not publishing these reports is to reduce public embarrassment to the University. That's a dubious reason, certainly not one that deserves deference or respect.
were charles ogletree and larry tribe on whatever committee decided about hauser? their own sorry history could possibly explain why they forgave hauser. or is that the level of ethics harvard expects from its tenured faculty is, well, non existent? yet another reason to want to get tenure at harvard!
I feel very sorry for his grad students.
Post a Comment