JLVernonPhD presents "American SciCo"

“Integrity is not complicated. If it seems to be, you probably do not belong on our team.”
                                                                                                                   ~David Sokol

Last week, the science world was shaken by revelations that renowned Harvard University psychology professor Dr. Marc Hauser had committed scientific misconduct.  The transgressions affected three of his scientific publications and cast doubt on more than eight years of research conducted under his supervision.  The announcement was delivered by letter from Arts and Sciences Dean Michael Smith to the Harvard faculty. 

News articles covering this story tended to focus on Hauser’s impact on the field of cognitive science, Harvard University, the researchers who collaborated with Hauser and the funding agencies.  By now, you surely know that I plan to focus on the impact this controversy will have on the science brand. 

According to UPenn emeritus psychology Professor David Premack, when speaking on the issue in a USA TODAY article, “Dishonesty in cognitive science is somehow more disturbing than dishonesty in biology or physical science.  The latter threatens the lives of people, producing a kind of harm we readily comprehend. The former puzzles us: it produces no physical harm, but threatens our standards, a kind of harm we do not readily understand. Because he caused no physical harm, we see him as discrediting everything he touched, including science itself.”

My reaction to this story may surprise readers of my blog, because I believe there is a silver lining to this story.  If handled properly, this tragedy can do great things for science.  What we have here is a ripe opportunity to showcase the integrity of the scientific process.  As I mentioned in my recent article on creating science brand loyalists, I think scientists need to be more transparent about the scientific process from experimental design through peer-reviewed publication.  By emphasizing the mechanisms built into the scientific process that brought this deception to an end, science communicators and journalists can make the public aware that science is a self-regulating system in which fraud will not endure.  While there were failures in the system, science ultimately prevailed. 

In this particular case, the misconduct that led to the investigation of Dr. Hauser occurred at the earliest stage of the scientific process, the experimental design.  David Dobbs does a great job describing the weaknesses of Hauser’s experimental protocols. The experiments involved observation of video recordings of monkeys responding to certain stimuli that were varied over time in order to induce a response from the monkeys.  The monkeys’ reactions to the stimulus were recorded by the observer.  Based on a letter written by the whistleblower researchers, professor Hauser’s observations conflicted with those of his lab assistants.  After the researchers realized that Dr. Hauser was trying to force them to accept and publish shoddy data, they acted properly by approaching the Harvard University administration to address these issues of scientific misconduct. 

For their bravery, the whistleblowers should be recognized as “loyal defenders” of science.  Not only did they end Dr. Hauser’s dangerous practices, they also fulfilled the unofficial oath for science. 

Thankfully, once these individuals brought this issue to the attention of the Harvard University ombudsman and the Dean of Arts and Sciences, the appropriate investigation was undertaken.  As far as we know, Dean Smith did not delay the investigation and subsequent to the completion of the investigation Dr. Hauser was properly sanctioned. 

When writing about this story, it is worthwhile to emphasize that there are several stages within the scientific process where fraud can be detected and prevented.  The peer-review process of publication failed us in this case, but the published articles are now being properly addressed.  Further, the public should be informed that subsequent research will be highly scrutinized before publication and that which passes these evaluations will come to replace the faulty data produced by Dr. Hauser.  In the end, the field of cognitive science will not be damaged by this calamity, rather it will be improved.  That is the beauty of science.

The bigger picture here is the positive effect this can have on the greater scientific community and its relationship with the public.  We should make it known to the public that the scientific community neither condones nor tolerates unscrupulous behavior.  In doing so, this will not only reinforce a sense of trust with the public, but this situation may also lend credibility to other areas of science that are currently being challenged by doubters of the scientific process, such as climate science. 

As you read this, the Virginia State Attorney General’s office is conducting an investigation of former University of Virginia professor Michael Mann for alleged manipulation of climate data.  Dr. Mann has already been cleared of any wrongdoing by the university.  Considering that Harvard has successfully prosecuted Dr. Hauser, it should be clear that the scientific community is serious about preserving scientific integrity on all fronts, and Dr. Mann’s clearance means his science is supported by the facts. 

If we are willing to air our dirty laundry in public regarding Dr. Hauser and condemn his actions as violations of scientific principles, perhaps we can convince reasonable Americans that anthropogenic global warming is not a “trick.”  If one man (Hauser) in one lab in America cannot convince his collaborators to go along with his corrupt plan, how could it be possible for thousands of climate scientists worldwide to perpetuate such an overwhelmingly massive hoax?  I’ll answer that.  They can’t, because the science of global warming is not a joke.