Harvard Researcher May Have Fabricated Data
哈佛研究人员学术造假？
Harvard authorities have made available information suggesting that Marc Hauser, a star researcher who was put on leave this month, may have fabricated data in a 2002 paper.
哈佛大学官方消息证实，该校重量级研究人员Marc Hauser涉嫌在2002年发表的论文中造假，本月已被校方辞退。
“Given the published design of the experiment, my conclusion is that the control condition was fabricated,” said Gerry Altmann, the editor of the journal Cognition, in which the experiment was published.
发表实验论文的《认知周刊》的编辑Gerry Altman说：“由于实验设计已经发表，我个人的结论是，论文中提及的控制情况是伪造的。”
Dr. Hauser said he expected to have a statement about the Cognition paper available soon. He issued a statement last week saying he was “deeply sorry” and acknowledged having made “significant mistakes” but did not admit to any scientific misconduct.
Hauser博士本人称，稍后他可能发表一篇在《认知周刊》上论文的相关陈述。上周他刊发一份声明称，他“深感抱歉”，而且已经认识到自己犯了“严重的错误”，但是他拒绝承认任何科学的误导。
Dr. Hauser is a leading expert in comparing animal and human mental processes and recently wrote a well-received book, “Moral Minds,” in which he explored the evolutionary basis of morality. An inquiry into his Harvard lab was opened in 2007 after students felt they were being pushed to reach a particular conclusion that they thought was incorrect. Though the inquiry was completed in January this year, Harvard announced only last week that Dr. Hauser had been required to retract the Cognition article, and it supplied no details about the episode.
Hauser博士是比较动物和人类精神处理工作领域中处于领先地位的专家，最近他撰写了一本广为接受的书——《道德心灵》，在书中，他对道德的进化基础进行了深入探究。早在2007年，哈佛的学子们感觉他们被迫达成一致的结论，而他们认为该结论并不正确。于是校方对Hauser在哈佛的实验室进行调查。尽管到今年1月已经完成调查，哈佛大学只是于上周宣布，他们要求Hauser博士撤销在《认知周刊》上发表的论文。但是校方并未给出详细的说明。
On Friday, Dr. Altmann said Michael D. Smith, dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, had given him a summary of the part of the confidential faculty inquiry related to the 2002 experiment, a test of whether monkeys could distinguish algebraic rules.
Altman博士周五称，针对2002年的一项实验——测试猴子是否能够辨认代数规则进行的学院内部调查，艺术和科学院的院系主任Michael D.Smith对其中部分情况做出自己的总结意见。
The summary included a description of a videotape recording the monkeys’ reaction to a test stimulus. Standard practice is to alternate a stimulus with a control condition, but no tests of the control condition are present on the videotape. Dr. Altmann, a psychologist at the University of York in England, said it seemed that the control experiments reported in the article were not performed.
总结中谈到，Smith描述了记录猴子对测试刺激有何反应的录像。标准惯例是为了用控制情况取代刺激，但是，录像中并没有记录对控制情况的测试。英格兰约克大学的心理学家Altman博士说，文章中提到的控制实验似乎并没进行。
Some forms of scientific error, like poor record keeping or even mistaken results, are forgivable, but fabrication of data, if such a charge were to be proved against Dr. Hauser, is usually followed by expulsion from the scientific community.
某些科学失误类别，诸如，存档不当或者甚至是错误的研究结果，都是可以得到原谅。但是伪造数据这种行为，如果证实确是Hauser博士所为的话，通常会导致他被从科学界中除名。
“There is a difference between breaking the rules and breaking the most sacred of all rules,” said Jonathan Haidt, a moral psychologist at the University of Virginia. The failure to have performed a reported control experiment would be “a very serious and perhaps unforgivable offense,” Dr. Haidt said.
弗吉尼亚大学的道德心理学家Jonathan Haidt说,“破坏规则和破坏所有规则的最神圣部分是有区别的”。未能进行报告中提到的控制实验，可能是“非常严重而且极有可能不容原谅的违规行为”。
Dr. Hauser’s case is unusual, however, because of his substantial contributions to the fields of animal cognition and the basis of morality. Dr. Altmann held out the possibility of redemption. “If he were to give a full and frank account of the errors he made, then the process can start of repatriating him into the community in some form,” he said.
但是，由于Hauser博士在动物认知和道德基础领域颇有建树，该案可谓一波激起千层浪。而Altman博士倾向于采取补救措施，他说，“如果他能对所犯错误做出全面、诚恳的解释，那么，校方将启动以某种形式将其请回科学界的程序”。
Dr. Hauser’s fall from grace, if it occurs, could cast a shadow over several fields of research until Harvard makes clear the exact nature of the problems found in his lab. Last week, Dr. Smith, the Harvard dean, wrote in a letter to the faculty that he had found Dr. Hauser responsible for eight counts of scientific misconduct. He described these in general terms but did not specify fabrication. An oblique sentence in his letter said that the Cognition paper had been retracted because “the data produced in the published experiments did not support the published findings.”
如果Hauser博士因为这次事件声名扫地，将对多个研究领域造成不利影响。这样的不利影响将持续到哈佛大学可以解释清楚在Hauser所在实验室中出现的问题之真相。上周，哈佛大学院系主任Smith博士在一封致学院的信中提到，他已经发现Hauser博士要为8种不当的科学行为负责。他用普通措辞描述了这些行为，但是并没明确提及伪造行为。在他的信中，有一句清楚地提到，由于“在发表的实验中产生的数据不能支持公布的发现”，在《认知周刊》中发表的论文已被撤销。
Scientists trying to assess Dr. Hauser’s oeuvre are likely to take into account another issue besides the eight counts of misconduct. In 1995, Dr. Hauser published that cotton-top tamarins, the monkey species he worked with, could recognize themselves in a mirror. The finding was challenged by the psychologist Gordon Gallup, who asked for the videotapes and has said that he could see no evidence in the monkey’s reactions for what Dr. Hauser had reported. Dr. Hauser later wrote in another paper that he could not repeat the finding.
除了8种不端的科学行为，试图评估Hauser博士所写论文的科学家们很有可能考虑他其他的不端行为。1995年，Hauser博士发表论文称，棉冠绢毛猴——与其共事的一种猴子，能够在镜子中认出自己。心理学家Gordon Gallup对他的这一发现提出质疑，向他索要了录像。之后，Gordon称在其提供的录像中并没有迹象显示Hauser报告的猴子反应行为。随后Hauser博士写了另外一篇论文称自己不能重复他的发现。
The small size of the field in which Dr. Hauser worked has contributed to the uncertainty. Only a handful of laboratories have primate colonies available for studying cognition, so few if any researchers could check Dr. Hauser’s claims.
博士所在的研究领域并不大，却促成了不确定性。只有极少数的实验室拥有灵长类群体可供认知研究，所以只有少数研究人员能够论证Hauser博士的说法。
“Marc was the only person working on cotton-top tamarins so far as I know,” said Alison Gopnik, a psychologist who studies infant cognition at the University of California, Berkeley. “It’s always a problem in science when we have to depend on one person.”
心理学家Alison Gopnik在位于伯克利的加利福尼亚大学研究婴儿认知能力，他说：“Marc是目前我所知的唯一一位研究棉冠绢毛猴的人。如果我们不得不依赖一个人，科学界就永远少不了问题。”
Many of Dr. Hauser’s experiments involved taking methods used to explore what infants are thinking and applying them to monkeys. In general, he found that the monkeys could do many of the same things as infants. If a substantial part of his work is challenged or doubted, monkeys may turn out to be less smart than recently portrayed.
Hauser博士的许多实验都采取一些用来开发婴儿想法的措施，并将之应用到猴子身上。总的来说，他发现许多婴儿能做的事情，猴子也能做。如果他的研究中相当一部分受到挑战或怀疑，猴子很有可能并非最近所塑造的那么聪明。
But his work on morality involved humans and is therefore easier for others to repeat. And much of Dr. Hauser’s morality research has checked out just fine, Dr. Haidt said.
但是，Haidt博士说，Hauser博士在道德观念上的研究涉及到人类，因此容易为人所重复。另外，他对道德观念的研究已被证实没有问题。
“Hauser has been particularly creative in studying moral psychology in diverse populations, including small-scale societies, patients with brain damage, psychopaths and people with rare genetic disorders that affect their judgments,” he said.
他补充说：“Hauser在多元化人口的道德心理研究领域（包括小规模社会、脑部残疾患者、精神变态者、以及那些患有影响其判断力的罕见遗传病的人）颇具创造性，功不可没。
追问谢谢同学。但是 有关于慈善 教育方面的吗？