As such, a strong argument may be made for the importance of preserving the collaborative system with greater state oversight and regulation.
The current shoddy thinking on the part of Paul Hilton is indefensible.
How does Paul Hilton explain all the
issues raised in these articles and the comments? Did he even take the time to conduct a google search after being dazzled by Hauser's intellect?
[It's worth reading the informed comments after these articles if you're interested in the topic.]
Fuzzy thinking such as this has caused our public education to become what it has with those of Paul Hilton's thinking.
Marc Hauser's excuse making for faking data
From the CHE:
It is not part of the job to falsify data.
http://scientopia.org/blogs/drugmonkey/2012/09/07/marc-hausers-excuse-making-for-faking-data/
Utterly ridiculous. This is the J.O.B. of an active, scientific research generating, field leading Professor appointed at Harvard and many other Universities.
In the statement, Hauser calls the five years of investigation into his research “a long and painful period.” He also acknowledges making mistakes, but seems to blame his actions on being stretched too thin. “I tried to do too much, teaching courses, running a large lab of students, sitting on several editorial boards, directing the Mind, Brain & Behavior Program at Harvard, conducting multiple research collaborations, and writing for the general public,” he writes.
It is not part of the job to falsify data.
http://scientopia.org/blogs/drugmonkey/2012/09/07/marc-hausers-excuse-making-for-faking-data/
September 7, 2012
Hauser Places Blame for Misconduct, But Not on Himself
Marc Hauser, the former Harvard psychology professor whose career and reputation imploded amid university findings of scientific misconduct, "fabricated data," "falsified coding," "falsely reported...results", and committed other violations, according to a report issued 5 September by the federal Office of Research Integrity. As stated in the report, Hauser "neither admits nor denies" wrongdoing, but "accepts ORI has found evidence of research misconduct."
As reported by the Chronicle of Higher Education, Hauser appears, however, to acknowledge only limited responsibility for the tainted results published under his name. In fact, in a move that highlights the vulnerability of young researchers who work in the labs of unscrupulous senior scientists, Hauser seems to be trying to lay off onto unknown others the blame for actions the ORI report ascribes to him. By way of explaining the situation, he declares in a statement quoted in the Chronicle that "I let important details get away from my control, and as head of the lab, I take responsibility for all errors made in the lab, whether or not I was directly involved."
These so-called "errors" of supposedly uncertain origin occurred because "I tried to do too much, teaching courses, running a large lab of students, sitting on several editorial boards, directing the Mind, Brain & Behavior Program at Harvard, conducting multiple research collaborations, and writing for the general public," he goes on. The arduous duties of a big-time academic apparently led him, the statement seems to imply, to making up or changing data.
Who are the unnamed others purportedly "involved" in the "errors"? Hauser's statement seems to implicate lab members, who would very likely be powerless and dependent "at-will employees and graduate students," in the words of a former research assistant of Hauser's quoted by the Chronicle. Some of them, at great cost to their own careers, brought his wrongdoing to light. All of them, it appears, were at risk of blame they did not deserve from a man whom, in the research assistant's words, "they should have been able to trust."
As reported by the Chronicle of Higher Education, Hauser appears, however, to acknowledge only limited responsibility for the tainted results published under his name. In fact, in a move that highlights the vulnerability of young researchers who work in the labs of unscrupulous senior scientists, Hauser seems to be trying to lay off onto unknown others the blame for actions the ORI report ascribes to him. By way of explaining the situation, he declares in a statement quoted in the Chronicle that "I let important details get away from my control, and as head of the lab, I take responsibility for all errors made in the lab, whether or not I was directly involved."
These so-called "errors" of supposedly uncertain origin occurred because "I tried to do too much, teaching courses, running a large lab of students, sitting on several editorial boards, directing the Mind, Brain & Behavior Program at Harvard, conducting multiple research collaborations, and writing for the general public," he goes on. The arduous duties of a big-time academic apparently led him, the statement seems to imply, to making up or changing data.
Who are the unnamed others purportedly "involved" in the "errors"? Hauser's statement seems to implicate lab members, who would very likely be powerless and dependent "at-will employees and graduate students," in the words of a former research assistant of Hauser's quoted by the Chronicle. Some of them, at great cost to their own careers, brought his wrongdoing to light. All of them, it appears, were at risk of blame they did not deserve from a man whom, in the research assistant's words, "they should have been able to trust."
Wow! Piled Higher and Deeper!
There are 217 comments after this editorial offering a biased defense of Marc Hauser by friends. 'colleagues.'
There is no indication that Paul Hilton read or considered this information prior to making the poor choice of hiring Marc Hauser.
Who Will Speak for Hauser?
Published: Tuesday, September 21, 2010
No comments:
Post a Comment