[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 173 (Thursday, September 6, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54917-54919]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-21992]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Office of the Secretary
Findings of Research Misconduct
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, HHS.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Office of Research Integrity
(ORI) has taken final action in the following case:
Marc Hauser, Ph.D., Harvard University: Based on the report of an
investigation conducted by Harvard University (Harvard) and additional
analysis conducted by ORI in its oversight review, ORI found that Dr.
Marc Hauser, former Professor, Department of Psychology, Harvard,
engaged in research misconduct in research supported by National Center
for Research Resources (NCRR), National Institutes of Health (NIH),
grants P51 RR00168-37 and CM-5-P40 RR003640-13, National Institute on
Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD), NIH, grant 5 R01
[[Page 54918]]
DC005863, and National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), NIH, grant 5
F31 MH075298.
ORI found that Respondent engaged in research misconduct as
follows:
Respondent published fabricated data in Figure 2 of the
paper Hauser, M.D., Weiss, D., & Marcus, G. ``Rule learning by cotton-
top tamarins.'' Cognition 86:B15-B22, 2002, which reported data on
experiments designed to determine whether tamarin monkeys habituated to
a sound pattern consisting of three sequential syllables (for example
AAB) would then distinguish a different sound pattern (i.e., ABB).
Figure 2 is a bar graph showing results obtained with 14 monkeys
exposed either to the same or different sound patterns than they were
habituated to. Because the tamarins were never exposed to the same
sound pattern after habituation, half of the data in the graph was
fabricated. Figure 2 is also false because the actual height of the
bars for the monkeys purportedly receiving the same test pattern that
they had been habituated to totaled 16 animals (7.14 subjects as
responding and 8.87 subjects as non-responding).
Respondent retracted the paper in 2010 (Cognition 117:106).
In two unpublished experiments designed to test whether or
not tamarin monkeys showed a greater response to certain combinations
of unsegmented strings of consonants and vowels than others, Respondent
falsified the coding of some of the monkeys' responses, making the
results statistically significant when the results coded by others
showed them to be non-significant. Respondent acknowledged to his
collaborators that he miscoded some of the trials and that the study
failed to provide support for the initial hypothesis. This research was
never written up for publication.
In versions of a manuscript entitled ``Grammatical Pattern
Learning by Human Infants and Monkeys'' submitted to Cognition,
Science, and Nature, Respondent falsely described the methodology used
to code the results for experiments 1 and 3 on ``grammar expectancy
violations'' in tamarin monkeys either by claiming coding was done
blindly or by fabricating values for inter-observer reliabilities when
coding was done by only one observer, in both cases leading to a false
proportion or number of animals showing a favorable response.
Specifically, in three different experiments in which tamarin
monkeys were exposed first to human voice recordings of artificial
sounds that followed grammatical structure and then exposed to stimuli
that conformed to or violated that structure, Respondent (1) provided
an incorrect description of the coding methodology by claiming in the
early versions of the manuscripts that ``two blind observers'' coded
trials and a third coded trials to resolve differences, while all of
the coding for one experiment was done just by the Respondent, and (2)
in a revised manuscript, while Respondent no longer mentioned ``two
blind observers, he claimed that ``Inter-observer reliabilities ranged
from 0.85 to 0.90,'' a statement that is false because there was only
one observer for one of the experiments.
Furthermore, in an earlier version of the manuscript, Respondent
falsely reported that ``16 out of 16 subjects'' responded more to the
ungrammatical rather than the grammatical stimuli for the predictive
language condition, while records showed that one of the sixteen
responded more to grammatical than ungrammatical stimuli, and one
responded equally to grammatical and ungrammatical.
Respondent and his collaborators corrected all of these issues,
including recoding of the data for some of the experiments prior to the
final submission and publication in Cognition 2007.
In the paper Hauser, M.D., Glynn, D., Wood, J. ``Rhesus
monkeys correctly read the goal-relevant gestures of a human agent.''
Proceedings of the Royal Society B 274:1913-1918, 2007, Respondent
falsely reported the results and methodology for one of seven
experiments designed to determine whether rhesus monkeys were able to
understand communicative gestures performed by a human.
Specifically, (1) in the ``Pointing without food'' trial,
Respondent reported that 31/40 monkeys approached the target box while
the records showed only 27 approached the target (both results are
statistically significant), and (2) there were only 30 videotapes of
the ``Pointing without food'' trials, while Respondent falsely claimed
in the paper's Materials and Methods that ``each trial was
videotaped.'' Respondent was not responsible for the coding, analyses,
or archiving but takes full responsibility for the falsifications
reported in the published paper. Respondent and one of his coauthors
replicated these findings with complete data sets and video records and
published them in Proceedings Royal Society B 278(1702):58-159, 2011.
Respondent accepts responsibility for a false statement in
the Methodology section for one experiment reported in the paper Wood,
J.N., Glynn, D.D., Phillips, B.C., & Hauser, M.D. ``The perception of
rational, goal-directed action in nonhuman primates.'' Science
317:1402-1405, 2007. The statement in the paper's supporting online
material reads that ``All individuals are * * * readily identifiable by
natural markings along with chest and leg tattoos and ear notches.'' In
fact, only 50% of the subjects could be identified by this method, thus
leading to the possibility of repeated testing of the same animal.
Respondent and one of his coauthers replicated these findings with
complete data sets and video records and published them in Science
332:537, 2011 (www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/317/5843/1402/DC2--
published online 25 April 2011).
Respondent engaged in research misconduct by providing
inconsistent coding of data in his unpublished playback experiment with
rhesus monkeys exploring an abstract pattern in the form of AXA by
falsely changing the coding results where the prediction was that
habituated animals were more likely to respond to an ungrammatical
stimulus than a grammatical one. After an initial coding of the data by
his research assistant, in which both Respondent and assistant agreed
that an incorrect procedure was used, the Respondent recoded the 201
trials and his assistant coded a subset for a reliability check. The
Respondent's codes differed from the original in 36 cases, 29 of them
in the theoretically predicted direction, thereby producing a
statistically significant probability of p = <0.01. Respondent
subsequently acknowledged to his collaborators that his coding was
incorrect and that the study failed to provide support for the initial
hypothesis. This research was never written up for publication.
Respondent neither admits nor denies committing research misconduct
but accepts ORI has found evidence of research misconduct as set forth
above and has entered into a Voluntary Settlement Agreement to resolve
this matter. The settlement is not an admission of liability on the
part of the Respondent. Dr. Hauser has voluntarily agreed for a period
of three (3) years, beginning on August 9, 2012:
(1) To have any U.S. Public Health Service (PHS)-supported research
supervised; Respondent agreed that prior to the submission of an
application for PHS support for a research project on which the
Respondent's participation is proposed and prior to Respondent's
participation in any capacity on PHS-supported research, Respondent
shall ensure that a plan for supervision of Respondent's duties is
submitted to ORI for approval;
[[Page 54919]]
the supervision plan must be designed to ensure the scientific
integrity of Respondent's research contribution; Respondent agreed that
he shall not participate in any PHS-supported research until such a
supervision plan is submitted to and approved by ORI; Respondent agreed
to maintain responsibility for compliance with the agreed upon
supervision plan;
(2) That any institution employing him shall submit, in conjunction
with each application for PHS funds, or report, manuscript, or abstract
involving PHS-supported research in which Respondent is involved, a
certification to ORI that the data provided by Respondent are based on
actual experiments or are otherwise legitimately derived, that the
data, procedures, and methodology are accurately reported in the
application, report, manuscript, or abstract, and that the text in such
submissions is his own or properly cites the source of copied language
and ideas; and
(3) To exclude himself voluntarily from serving in any advisory
capacity to PHS including, but not limited to, service on any PHS
advisory committee, board, and/or peer review committee, or as a
consultant.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Director, Division of Investigative
Oversight, Office of Research Integrity, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite
750, Rockville, MD 20852, (240) 453-8800.
John Dahlberg,
Director, Division of Investigative Oversight, Office of Research
Integrity.
[FR Doc. 2012-21992 Filed 9-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4150-31-P