Strange Tongue

There are a great many scientists in several fields - cognitive, comparative, evolutionary and developmental psychology - studying the origins of human cognition and asking what is and is not unique to humans. These scientists collectively represent a wide variety of theories and opinions that are currently argued and debated in publications, at conferences, etc. (In fact, this is true in every scientific discipline - the cutting-edge forefront is full of competing theories and ideas.) The vast majority of scientists do not 'cook' their data to make it suit their agenda. To portray someone who utterly misreports his data as a mere "victim" of the forces of scientific conflict is insulting to all scientists who work hard, try to make honest sense of data that conflict with their predictions, and don't misrepresent their findings - which undermines the scientific enterprise.
Moreover, the notion that a scientist doing this type of research could "see what he wanted to see" in his data, and thus "accidentally" misrepresent his findings, is inaccurate. It is quite standard in this kind of research to have "blind" coders (who don't know what the subject is seeing or hearing) code subjects' responses - so standard that it would be difficult or impossible to have a study accepted for publication that did not follow this protocol. Hauser followed this protocol in having is research assistants code the data. Those codings, however, apparently are not what he decided to report. This is not "seeing what you want to see" and reporting your misperceptions. This is falsification of data.

I am disturbed by the trend of Hauser explanations that use it as an opportunity to grind axes about whole swaths of scientific inquiry.

Really insidious-- you imply that a whole branch of science is deluding themselves and that the end-product is ultimately data falsification.

Instead, we should look at careerism as the culprit. Combine ambition, the high-volume of output, and the desire for fame/money/book deals/etc., and the urge to bring speedy and trendy new science to the fore might just become too much. Mix in some cockiness ("Hey, I must be right, anyway, so a little nudge of results here won't hurt."), and fraud is what you get.

It happens in all branches of science-- like the famous nanotechnology Schoen case at the Bell Labs-- so this thoughtless garbage about all these self-deluded behaviorists just being some kind of a boiling cauldron of potential fraud energy is just plain wrong.

the article author constructs a strawman of evolutionary biology to build off:

"For half a century, a major goal of the behavioral sciences has been to show that the differences between humans and other animals are in reality much less than they had seemed to previous generations. Two powerful forces combined to support that effort, one biological, one ideological. The biological force was the gradualness of evolution, which changed imperceptibly from a reasonable general rule into a dogma. If evolution happened always through a series of tiny steps, then there should not be any significant gaps between the abilities of related species. In light of this belief, the huge apparent gaps in language and cognition between humans and any other species constituted an acute embarrassment. If one could show that those gaps were only apparent, that embarrassment would go away."

NO.

evolutionary biologists do not look at EXTANT species as evolutionary stepping stones.

your postulation is the equivalent of a creationist saying:

"If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"

you need to rethink your entire thesis here.

I admit my response above ("Cognitive scientist") contained some infelicities, and did not adequately address the substance of my disagreement. (The Anonymice are not the same, I should note. I did, however, use my real email address in the system which, if you can see it, will lead you to my identity through the Google oracle.) Your article is quite provocative, and I contributed my comment in haste and frustration. *I apologize.*

I did use a few interrogatives in my commentary, so there were questions in the comments... but I'll be more explicit. Judging from your previous battles in comments (I've read your other pieces), I should shiver while awaiting your scythe:

1) There is a not-too-subtle implication in your article that the theoretical inclination of Hauser and others regarding precursors is somehow in itself conducive to misconduct due to its radical ideological nature. But it seems extremely unfair to cast such a characterization over a fairly broad range of researchers in the field. In my opinion, if this is indeed related to his misconduct, it is theoretical or ideological fervor in general which does so, not which particular brand of it. Do you think there is something especially corrupting about this theoretical approach, or would you be willing to accept a weaker thesis by saying that it is theoretical/ideological zealotry in general that can lead one astray?

2) While it is true that novel behavior *could* rapidly emerge without "obvious" precursor ratcheting in an evo-devo framework (Jablonka and Lamb in their 2005 book do wonders to showcase this kind of thing), there is considerable evidence for "behavioral phylogeny" in species, and it is a well-known approach. The empirical question is whether certain basic cognitive processes underlie language -- very high memory, social capacities, sequencing skill, fine-grained motor control, semanticity, and so on -- are present in non-human primates, monkeys, or other creatures. Just because behavior can emerge nonlinearly in gene-organism-environment interactions, does not mean that it did. It is important to develop new methods to uncover such potential cognitive precursors, that are part behavioral and very likely part physiological. Your article draws a curious distinction between behavior and physiology. Given these brief points, I would contest your scientific thesis by stating (1) not all behaviors emerge nonlinearly -- language may have important and interesting precursors and it is an empirical question that still awaits exciting and evolving new methods, and (2) cognitive skills are founded both on "behavioral" and physiological bases (would you ever really argue that behaviors are somehow not related deeply to physiology, in particular, neurophysiology?).

I'll leave it there for now.

-- Cognitive scientist

Hi to Derek Bickerton. I'd love to avoid some of the above incivility, (you know, if you're going to blog publicly, you might try to rise above some of the less agreeable aspects of what comes back to you publicly), but I'd also like to disagree profoundly with what you have written.

1) As others have pointed out, there's no fair and ethical way to link Hauser's theoretical point of view, no matter how much you disagree with it, with his misdoings in the laboratory. The logic here (that he cheated and that he misunderstands evolution) continues to escape me.

2) This paragraph is more interesting:

>> Evo-devo, the marriage of evolutionary and developmental biology, is revealing that genes are far from arbitrary dictators, that many are pluripotential and that interactions between genes, along with changes in the timing of regulatory genes and countless other factors (many of them epigenetic), can yield widely differing results. Niche construction theory is showing that animals can play a role in their own evolution. They can begin to practice new behaviors that go beyond what the animals were specifically programmed to do, and that become themselves selective pressures, altering genetic make-up to support the new behavior.

But to the uninitiated it could seem to suggest that outside of evo-devo or niche construction theory, the fallback position in evolutionary science is that genes are arbitrary dictators or that animals are hugely constrained by their developmental blueprints-- not to mention that anyone interested in locating precursors in other primates (to behaviors of humans) is somehow buying into that fallback position.

This would be a quite misguided understanding. Scientists working within a dynamic systems perspective-- to take just one example-- have long understood the nonlinearity and epigenetic nature of evolving behavior. For one specific theorist, see this link about Gilbert Gottlieb, but there are many others: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/dev.20273/pdf

In other words, it is perfectly possible (I'm not talking about Hauser here, I'm speaking in general) to seek precursors to human behavior without "falling victim to an outdated" view of evolution. Again, I think you've made a link that isn't substantiated.

As to charges that you are engaging in self-promotion, by mentioning your book's title, I find them tiresome. Why wouldn't a scientist offer, on his own blog, a reference to a work that backs up at greater length the points made? Here even as I submit this comment, I'm linking to my own website. That's just a sensible thing to do; as much as I disagree with your blog post, of course you should mention your own book.

... and not because I don't have my doubts about the underlying ideology of contemporary behavioral science (or, at least, the sort I believe that underlies Hauser's work). It's silly because it's take advantage of Hauser's scandal to push Bickerton's agenda, implying Hauser's commitment to an incorrect/misguided ideology is what explains his misconduct and not Hauser's desire for publishable results and personal gain. Bickerton should have actually discussed this more obvious and prima facie plausible explanation first, explained why it doesn't work, and then presented his argument regarding an outdated theory of genetic determinism. Otherwise it's sort of like attributing Nixon's misconduct leading to the Watergate scandal to outdated conservative fiscal policy.

Let's keep in mind the press chooses what quotes they publish, and there's always a broader context from which they select just a tiny tidbit. It is quite possible Susan Carey meant (or even said to the reporter outright) something like "I feel terrible for Hauser - look how he sabotaged his own career plus those of all his students, what a sad and needless waste. It is so sad to see someone who's been a colleague and friend for many years, bring such foolish ruin upon himself and his associates." Whatever the full context of her quote, I'm sure the entire thing is a nightmare for the department head and all of Hauser's colleagues, and that many in that department are probably feeling some version of the above. Feeling "bad" for someone does not necessarily equate to condoning what they did or trying to excuse their actions. As a parent, if I learned (say) that my child cheated in school, got found out, received a failing grade and is now shunned & reviled by the other students, I could feel utterly broken-hearted for him - why did he so foolishly and wrongly give in to selfish, self-serving temptation? How will he cope with this immense (albeit deserved) social humiliation and rejection? Will he be up to the task of trying to rebuild his standing amongst his peers, and more importantly, will he be able to see the need and meet the challenge to rebuild himself into someone with more personal integrity? - I could feel all this while at the same time believing that the consequences are a fair and just response to his fool-hardy, self-serving actions.

Dr. B, you keep dismissing those of us who think the fault lies solely with Hauser as "trivializing" the matter by turning it into a simple "goodies vs. baddies" game. This is *precisely* what is so appalling about your article and blog responses. A vast majority of scientists/researchers DO NOT FALSIFY THEIR DATA. So, you know what? When someone like Hauser does falsify his data, he's a moral *outlier*. He FAILED to do what approximately 99% of researchers succeed in doing: live up to their ethical obligations. That makes him, yes, BAD. It's that simple.

If the content and purpose of your post was "totally misunderstood by nearly everyone," could it be because you didn't express your points clearly? Must it be that your readers all have "a deep psychological need to play events like this as a simplistic "goodies versus baddies" scenario and ignore any serious underlying issues?"

Your post has the title "Why Hauser Did It." In the body of the post you say:

"The answer to that question turns out to be key in understanding the last half-century of the behavioral sciences and the forces that drove it. Hauser was simply a victim of those forces,"

and

"Hauser fell victim to a soon-to-be-outdated view of evolution. He believed in that view, and, as the old adage has it, believing is seeing. When you're sure something must be there, you're liable to see it, whether it's really there or not, and at whatever the cost to your career."

It is not surprising that people took you as saying that Hauser was a 'victim' of believing the wrong theory and that that's why he falsified data. It is equally unsurprising that readers might disagree with such an explanation - which does not equate to having "a deep psychological need" to be simplistic and avoid serious issues.

Why do people assume that 99% of scientists are ethical? I think it is true that careerism is an important factor in the equation, and thus that we should expect that there are more unethical scientists out there. Furthermore, institutions do not have any systems in place to safeguard against this sort of thing. If we are relying on whistle-blowers and honesty (that is unclouded by careerist impulses), then I am inclined to think that the fraudsters are far more prevalent than we want to believe, unfortunately.