After a three-year internal investigation by Harvard University, animal cognition researcher Marc Hauser has been found "solely responsible" for eight counts of scientific misconduct. Since its beginning, the matter has been shrouded in secrecy, with Hauser admitting only to certain "mistakes." However, Hauser is now on a one-year leave of absence from Harvard, and in response to the investigation’s findings, the University's Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences has vowed to "determine the sanctions that are appropriate."

For more than two decades, Hauser has been a leader in the field of animal cognition research and has been an outspoken advocate of the idea that animals possess many of the abilities that we think of as uniquely human. He has also done work suggesting that morality has an evolutionary basis in animals, and has written two well-received books on the evolution of cognition, morality, and behavior. Hauser has worked at Harvard since 1992, receiving the National Science Foundation Young Investigator Award in 1993 and a Guggenheim Fellowship in 2005.

Students raise a flag about questionable practices

Questions about Hauser’s research began after he conducted an experiment and found that rhesus monkeys can recognize specific patterns of syllables. The researchers repeated three syllables over a loudspeaker, getting the monkeys used to a particular pattern such as "A-A-B." They then varied the pattern—for instance, to "A-B-B"—to see whether the monkeys noticed the change. If the monkeys turned their heads toward the speaker after the new sequence was played, the researchers inferred that they were surprised by the change in the syllable pattern.

As is customary in animal behavior research, multiple observers analyzed videotapes of the rhesus monkey trials. According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, Hauser's analysis of the tapes showed that the monkeys noticed the pattern change, while the second observer, a research assistant, found no evidence that the monkeys reacted in this way. When pressed to have a third observer rewatch the tapes to resolve the discrepancy, Hauser refused, advocating that the research should be published with the data he gleaned from the videos.

Alarmed that not only was Hauser's data wrong, but that he was pushing the students to publish data they felt was contradictory, the research assistant and a graduate student took their concerns to the university. The questionable experiment was shelved, and an official investigation into Hauser's research was launched.

Since the investigation began in 2007, several papers coauthored by Hauser have been called into question. The first was a study published in the journal Cognition in 2002 that asserted that cotton-top tamarins can identify changes in syllable patterns; this paper was retracted when the investigation found that "the data do not support the reported findings." A 1995 PNAS paper reported that cotton-top tamarins can recognize themselves in a mirror, a result that is surprising because this new world monkey species is not known to have advanced cognitive abilities. When questions were raised about the findings, Hauser repeated the experiment and found that the results held: the monkeys again aced the mirror test, indicating self-recognition.

Two 2007 studies, which were published in Science and Proceedings of the Royal Society B, found that primates understand human gestures. These were also under investigation because Hauser could not produce any field notes or raw data. Hauser has since repeated both of these experiments and has apparently confirmed the earlier results. While Science has not issued any statement about the 2007 paper, Proc B published a brief note about the controversy in their July issue.

The difficulties of animal behavior research

Studies of animal behavior—and animal cognition in particular—are notoriously difficult to perform and analyze. Research often suffers from small sample sizes, which are winnowed down even further after controlling for animals' age, sex, and reproductive state. In behavioral trials, it is difficult to control for environmental factors as well, since time of day, temperature, diet, and the presence of "onlookers," or other animals nearby, can drastically affect an experiment's results.

Once an experiment has been performed, the most difficult work begins: data analysis. In all reputable animal behavior experiments, all trials are videotaped and analyzed after the fact to increase reliability. Researchers watch the tapes and code the animals' responses; trials are usually coded by several observers who are blinded to the experimental conditions.

However, due to the nature of the work, the coding is often somewhat subjective. While researchers adhere to specific definitions (such as "the monkey turns to face the speaker when the sound is played"), judgment calls often must be made. For example, if the monkey turns its head toward the sound but its gaze ends up five or ten degrees shy of the speaker, does that count as a proper response? If the monkey becomes distracted while the sound is being played, can the researcher play the sound again and count the monkey's response to this second stimulus as valid?

Researchers are almost always overly conservative with these judgment calls but, due to the infinite number of these subjective scenarios, there are no hard and fast rules.

Finally, drawing conclusions from these studies is difficult, simply due to the fact that the research aims to determine what is going on in an animal's head. How much can we really infer from merely watching behavior and interpreting it? While researchers carefully construct their experiments so that the results are as clear and informative as possible, the extent to which we can extrapolate information about animals' cognitive processes is controversial.

However, none of the difficulties involved in animal behavior research excuse any form of scientific misconduct, from poor record-keeping to outright falsification of data. If anything, the subjective nature of animal behavior research necessitates scientists to be even more careful, in order to maintain credibility and ensure that their data is correct.

A veil of secrecy

Hauser has remained tight-lipped about the investigation, only noting in his statement that he has "made some serious mistakes" and is "deeply disappointed" about the findings. He has not given any further details about the nature of the mistakes he has made. Harvard has also been stingy with information, both while the investigation was ongoing, and now that it has concluded.

Michael Smith, the Harvard dean that wrote up the results of the investigation, acknowledges that Hauser was found guilty of scientific misconduct, but he also states that "Harvard considers confidential the specific sanctions applied to anyone found responsible for scientific misconduct." Some of the possible punishments include involuntary leave, restrictions on advisory roles, and "additional oversight" on Hauser’s future research. However, it appears that Harvard will not officially release details of whatever sanction they deem appropriate.

Although the Harvard investigation has concluded, several other inquiries into Hauser's research are ongoing. In particular, the National Science Foundation, the US Attorney's office, and the Public Health Service’s Office of Research Integrity are also looking into the matter.

The fallout

The news that Hauser has, at the least, been careless, and at the most, committed significant data fraud, is extremely disappointing. He has made significant headway in narrowing the cognitive gap between humans and other animals, not only through his research but also through his public appearances, his charismatic teaching style, and his popular writing.

While Hauser should certainly be punished for his extremely poor judgment, this unfortunate series of events should not cast doubt upon the entire field of animal cognition. There are plenty of scientists in the field doing extremely careful and conscientious research. In the last few decades, very solid science has documented extraordinary cognitive abilities in everything from ravens to hyenas to chimpanzees, and has furthered our understanding of not only animals' cognitive abilities but also our comprehension of our own human minds. The fallout from Hauser's irresponsible actions will hopefully encourage responsible science, experimental replication, and an even more thorough review process.