Renowned Harvard Primatologist Found Guilty of Scientific Misconduct

By Joseph Calamia | August 23, 2010 3:42 pm

monkeyAn investigation of Marc Hauser, a Harvard University psychology professor who studies primate behavior and animal cognition, came to a head on Friday with a letter from Harvard’s dean confirming eight instances of scientific misconduct.

The exact offenses are still unclear, but three papers have received or are receiving modifications. The papers include a 2002 Cognition article (retracted), a 2007 article in Proceedings of the Royal Society B (received an addendum), and a 2007 article in Science.

From Harvard Dean Michael Smith’s letter:

[T]he investigating committee found problems with respect to the three publications mentioned previously, and five other studies that either did not result in publications or where the problems were corrected prior to publication. While different issues were detected for the studies reviewed, overall, the experiments reported were designed and conducted, but there were problems involving data acquisition, data analysis, data retention, and the reporting of research methodologies and results. [Chronicle of Higher Education]

While Harvard has not been forthcoming with the details, one former research assistant provided the Chronicle of Higher Education with email exchanges between research assistants and Hauser, related to particular problems interpreting results from primate study.

Specifically, the unpublished study reportedly attempted to determine if primates could recognize sound patterns–what some see as a skill for language development. From the Chronicle’s description, the data’s interpretation required determining if a monkey was looking at a stereo speaker as a response to an unusual sound pattern played after a series of similar ones. A research assistant’s evaluation and Hauser’s appeared to significantly differ; in Hauser’s assessment the monkeys had showed their cognitive skills by responding to the unusual pattern, while the assistant’s evaluation showed the opposite. After repeated suggestions from the assistant that a third party look at the data, Hauser reportedly refused:

[T]he research assistant who analyzed the numbers explained his concern. “I don’t feel comfortable analyzing results/publishing data with that kind of skew until we can verify that with a third coder,” he wrote….  After several back-and-forths, it became plain that the professor was annoyed. “i am getting a bit pissed here,” Mr. Hauser wrote in an e-mail to one research assistant. “there were no inconsistencies! let me repeat what happened. i coded everything. then [a research assistant] coded all the trials highlighted in yellow. we only had one trial that didn’t agree. i then mistakenly told [another research assistant] to look at column B when he should have looked at column D. … we need to resolve this because i am not sure why we are going in circles.” [Chronicle of Higher Education]

David Dobbs has a detailed post on his blog Neuron Culture on how the test itself should work and how it might have gone wrong with Hauser’s lab.

Since federal grants helped fund some of Hauser’s research, as the Dean’s letter describes, federal agencies (PHS Office of Research Integrity, the NSF Office of Inspector General and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts) will continue to investigate. Harvard is keeping mum on their exact findings and Hauser’s fate at the university. The Dean’s letter does detail some possible sanctions: involuntary leave, oversight on Hauser’s research lab, and restrictions on Hauser’s ability to apply for grants, among other things.

Hauser spoke to The New York Times on Friday.

Dr. Hauser, a rising star for his explorations into cognition and morality, made his first public statement since news of the inquiry emerged last week, telling The New York Times, “I acknowledge that I made some significant mistakes” and saying he was “deeply sorry for the problems this case had caused to my students, my colleagues and my university.” [The New York Times]

For more on the investigation, see posts by DISCOVER’s Ed Yong on Not Exactly Rocket Science and Razib Khan on Gene Expression.

Related content:
80beats: ClimateGate Inquiry: No Scientific Misconduct From “Squeaky Clean” Researchers
80beats: The Lancet Retracts 1998 Paper That Linked Vaccinations to Autism
80beats: South Korean Cloning Scientist Is Convicted, but Spared Jail Time
80beats: Nuclear Fusion Researcher Found Guilty of Scientific Misconduct

Image: flickr / Ryan Wick

  • Rhacodactylus

    A sad day for all of us, but a great example of scientists cleaning house. We’ll kick a guy out for fudging data, meanwhile the church lets you back after you diddle kids.

  • Dave


    Stand up and take it like a man. It’s disappointing to see you fidget, squirm and deflect Hauser’s faults by invoking everyone’s favorite scapegoat. It’s not about the church and it’s dirty laundry. It’s not about Hauser’s childhood or parents either so forget that excuse. It’s not about anything except Hauser’s lack of integrity and about the silence of too many of his colleagues who must have sensed something of this sort. A man as insightful as Pinker must have had an inkling. Or does Pinker also see what he wants to see? Congratulations to the student who called Hauser’s bluff.

  • Eliza Strickland

    Dave, you completely missed Rhacodactylus’s point.

    R isn’t blaming the church, but is instead praising the scientific establishment for coming clean about the misconduct of a very respected researcher. (Although I think Harvard could be a bit more forthcoming about the allegations.)

    Eliza, DISCOVER online news editor

  • Sven DiMilo

    “Marc is a beloved scientist, teacher, and colleague,” Hauser’s friend and colleague, psychology professor Steven A. Pinker wrote in an e-mail Thursday. Pinker has not collaborated with Hauser on any published studies. “He is widely admired not just for his astonishing breadth and creativity in devising ways to investigate deep problems with elegant experiments, but for his warmth, humor, and lack of pretension.”


  • vel

    “must have sensed something of this sort”. *Must have* Dave? Nice invoking your evidently immense psychic senses.

  • Dave

    Eliza and vel

    R’s point was an oblique one and I did see it. I didn’t say R was “blaming” the church any more than the church is blaming Hauser. My point was that R was trying to deflect this moment of shame by dragging in some other shame. As in, “Well, at least we’re not that bad”. We learn from mistakes by taking them to heart, not by spraying them. And I agree that science corrects and cleans it’s own house. That should have been the only point and it’s a good point.

    As for “meanwhile the church lets you back after you diddle kids”, some university will let Hauser back in after he diddled the data. It won’t be Harvard but he’ll be back at the podium soon enough.

    I didn’t say Pinker and Hauser collaborated on papers so I’m not saying Pinker’s data is dirty. I am saying they are “beloved” soul mates. Moreover, I would guess their students chum about some just as Pinker and Hauser do and I would bet their students gossip. So this stuff is known at some accessible level well above the “psychic” level. Pinker was clued in to his students gossip. I read somewhere (NYTimes?) that this suspicion has been out there for some time so it didn’t just sneak up on everyone.

  • m

    I think Dave may have a point.

    Look how fast they let those enviro nazi’s back into the fold of -ahem- scientific research (eeck….i feel so dirty calling it that) after being caught fudging data.

    Will this be any different?

  • LaTessa

    Dave, you completely missed Rhacodactylus’s point.

    R isn’t blaming the church, but is instead praising the scientific establishment for coming clean about the misconduct of a very respected researcher. (Although I think Harvard could be a bit more forthcoming about the allegations.)

    Eliza, DISCOVER online news editor

    But none the less, madam, using the comparison of the church to make his point. A point he knows little about. The church doesn’t let you back in when you “diddle” kids. And that dismissive tone is insulting.

    Kudos, BTW ,to the assistant who didn’t back more time that a second pair of eyes saved the day.



Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!


80beats is DISCOVER's news aggregator, weaving together the choicest tidbits from the best articles covering the day's most compelling topics.

See More

Collapse bottom bar