Hauser's Case Becomes More Convoluted

The controversy surrounding Harvard professor Marc Hauser has become more convoluted as Hauser’s defenders speak up, publicly invoking the researcher’s “unimpeachable scientific integrity.” Hauser himself remains silent on the issue—since he is legally bound to keep details of the investigation undisclosed, he can't mount a full-fledged attempt to clear his name.

According to a recent article in The New York Times, Hauser’s most outspoken non-Harvard accuser, Gerry Altmann, has recently backpedaled slightly in his accusations. Altmann—who had previously accused Hauser of fabricating data—now concedes that “laboratory error” could be responsible for the indiscretion that is reportedly the most egregious charge of misconduct leveled against Hauser, a 2002 article published by Hauser and a colleague that deals with rhesus monkeys and their cognitive ability to process language. Altmann says that his confidence in making the claims was bolstered by Harvard’s initial indictment of Hauser; he is now stressing the importance of “due process” in the proceedings against the Harvard professor. 

The specifics of these types of cases are intricate, especially for laymen. Basically, Hauser has been accused of knowingly influencing his students’ lab findings so that their results supported his conclusions. The case in question is a ground-breaking study on rhesus monkey cognition; research assistants in Hauser’s lab maintain that they received very different results than Hauser in certain tests that wouldn’t have supported the professor’s claims. However, some are referring to this as a "technical difference of opinion." David Wade of the Times summarizes the essential difficulty: “The e-mails leaked to The Chronicle of Higher Education were portrayed as an instance of Dr. Hauser pressuring his students to reach conclusions they thought unjustified. But they could also have involved a technical difference of opinion about how to score rhesus monkey behavior, a matter in which Dr. Hauser is trained and the two students were not.”

Hauser’s case is pertinent to many of today’s conflicts in the world of scientific misconduct. Where does scientific expertise take precedence in this case, and who is the final authority when it comes to highly specialized and esoteric branches of science? 

Tom Bartlett of The Chronicle of Education raises a good question about Hauser’s allegedly “untrained” students: “Besides, if they weren’t trained, then why would Hauser let them score experiments in the first place?” Did Hauser think that his expertise allowed him to exercise final judgment in his lab, even if it meant overriding his students’ and fellow researchers’ opinions?

The jury is still out, as it were—but if Hauser is found culpable of misconduct, let’s hope that his motivations get chalked up to an abuse of power rather than his "expertise" lest he give "expertise" a bad reputation.