Talk:Marc Hauser

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance).

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.

ThatsMeInTheCrowd (talk · contribs) has been paid by Marc Hauser on their behalf. Disclosure may be found at the user page User:ThatsMeInTheCrowd

.

Article withdrawn, author under investigation.

Expert on Morality Is on Leave After Research Inquiry

Inquiry on Harvard Lab Threatens Ripple Effect

I mention these news articles about Marc Hauser, with links, on this talk page solely to alert other editors to the need to check for reliable sources for this article. If an article is withdrawn from a published journal, it is no longer a reliable source. I visited talk pages of articles that cite Hauser after doing a Google search restricted to Wikipedia. You can find news articles about the current investigation of Hauser by doing a Google news search. That's all. I make no conclusions about Hauser, but thought that editors who work on articles who cite his writings might want to be aware of this. Reliable sources are always important on Wikipedia. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 14:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Allegations Section

On the editing page, I've noticed there is an all-out war in the "Additional Allegations" section. There are anonymous (IP-logged) editors repeatedly adding in words like "alleged" and "unconfirmed" and deleting information that is actually available in the quoted sources. Just for reference, the news sources that are being quoted are The NY Times, The Boston Globe, USA Today and The Chronicle of Higher Education. Even if the sources are anonymous and the reports are second-hand, any newspaper of that stature will have done major fact checking for stories like this. By the time a story hits the news stands, the information reported is no longer "alleged." These newspapers will have checked whether the anonymous source they're quoting was actually involved as he/she claims to have been and whether a second-hand source actually has credibility. I think that anonymous editing should be disabled for this page and that edits in this vein should be deleted.Salthizar (talk) 06:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm loathe to request semiprotection for this page over what is essentially a content dispute by well-informed editors, even if they're new to Wikipedia and adopt an overly polemical tone in their writing. I do agree with you that repeatedly harping on "alleged" is unseemly - we put it in a section on allegations, which should be sufficient. Repeated use of the word implies prejudice on our part against the allegations. Ray^Talk 03:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds completely reasonable.Salthizar (talk) 06:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some cleanup, mostly for style - as I stated above, it's not necessary to harp on the unofficial nature of the information in this section; doing so implies prejudice on our part. It is not necessary to state the source of each news article so long as such things are recorded in the citations. I made, I believe, two substantive changes: the first is that as the characterization of Tomasello as a competitor of Hauser's is unsourced and potentially prejudicial, and thus I've struck it. The second is regarding the Chronicle of Higher Education article - there is no qualification there in identifying their source as a former research assistant of Hauser's, and so I've struck such qualifications as "allegedly" from our characterization of him. The ability of the Chronicle to check the identity of their source is not, I feel, subject to question. Ray^Talk 22:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to cleaning up the Unconfirmed allegations section for style, but it seems striking that the only persons who are interviewed in the Hauser case are those who have never worked with him at all and who are potentially in competition with him. As the Harvard Crimson reports, all of his students and former and current collaborators refused to be interviewed, which makes the reporting less than balanced. In contrast to what Salthizar states above, I don't see how journals, even if they are reputable, can check their facts under these conditions, and, in fact, the conclusion of Wade in the NY Times (i.e., that nobody knows what Hauser actually did) seem to stand in striking contrast to the allegations by Tomasello and others, although Wade quotes them himself.

There are also other things that are less than balanced, like the statements by Gallup. There is no report on the methodology he used to assess Hauser's tape except for a claim that he did, and if you are used to working with rhesus monkeys and chimps, you don't necessarily know what to do with the much smaller cotton-top tamarins. So either somebody accepts to look up the original reference of what he actually did, and what his criticisms were, as well as how Hauser responded to them, or a balanced presentation would require to point to the fact that his criticism involved a species that is very different from the species he usually works with. However, I still don't see how the controversy involving two research - Gallup and Hauser - is relevant to the allegations of unspecified misconduct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravpy8 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC) — Ravpy8 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Ravpy8: I have reverted[1] back to RayAYang's cleaned-up version. That version is neutrally presented and does not contain any POV/WP:OR commentary that your version has. Nsk92 (talk) 17:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Gallup/Anderson critique

I've cleaned up some portions for style. In addition, I have cut Ravpy8's entire discussion of Anderson and Gallup's paper, since I found it inappropriate. Following a cursory read of the paper, I feel that Ravpy8 did not address the strongest points of Anderson and Gallup's paper, and indeed weakened their argument in his presentation. Anderson and Gallup argue that a) if taken at face value, Hauser's work would imply serious error in multiple previous studies on the subject, b) that his work suffered from major methodological shortcomings, and c) that their own review of Hauser's videotape data led to quite a different interpretation. In any case, it's clear that different editors can interpret the merits of the critique quite differently, which is why the interpretation of scientific research and of the fine points of scientific disputes from the original sources is beyond the scope of Wikipedia. I think we should content ourselves with reporting allegations as stated in a reliable secondary source (the Boston Globe), and sticking to an outline of the facts of the matter. Ray^Talk 00:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. In addition to your points I think that this section was not in a good proportion compared with other sections. I tried to condense it a bit further. --Tinz (talk) 01:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm forced to disagree with RayAYang. First, in what sense is it a problem of the Hauser paper that it might suggest errors in previous studies? If anything, that would be a problem of the other papers, not of Hauser's. By your account, it would have been a problem for the Michelson Morley experiment that it was inconsistent with the existence of aether, so it suggested problems in the theories of other physicists. Also, I assume that you are aware that this Hauser paper challenged claims Gallup has made throughout his career, so he might not be entirely disinterested in the outcome. Second, my reading of the methodological short-comings is that Gallup expects tamarins to behave like chimps, which they won't because they are completely different animals. If you think that the methodological criticisms are good, feel free to discuss them, and to confront them with Hauser's replies. I'm open to that, but as you put it, it's just unbalanced. Third, Gallup and Anderson clearly state in their reply that the details about Hauser's coding criteria were insufficient, so they must have used different criteria. I don't know what kinds of criteria they used, but I assume that they used the same coding criteria as they would use with apes or large old world monkeys since this is the only thing they know. But if this is really what they did, it would be rather silly. Fourth, as for the fact checking by the Boston Globe, I note that the NY Times is much more careful in its conclusions because what you portray as "facts" are for the most part rumors. If I understand you correctly, the "fine points of scientific disputes from the original sources is beyond the scope of Wikipedia", but unverified and potentially libelous rumors are not. Congratulations. Again, what the Boston Globe writes might be true, but it might also be false, given that they have to sell their stories. And I think this should be made clear in the article.Ravpy8 (talk) 03:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tinz that this mirror experiment is out of proportion to the rest of the article. In fact, I don't see at all what it has to do with the investigation, but people tend to put it back. The only unusual thing about it is that Hauser bothered to replicate his experiment although he clearly won the argument (if the anim behav editors had thought otherwise, you would have seen a second reply from Gallup et al.). And when he failed to replicate, he was courageous enough to publish that he failed to replicate. If anything that's to his honor, but I'm not aware of any evidence that this controversy is related to the investigation at all. There is no shortage of controversies in animal cognition, and some turn somewhat vitriolic.Ravpy8 (talk) 03:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RayAYang, I'm putting back small parts of the Gallup discussion. I frankly think that you misread their reply if you really think that it's a problem for a paper to point out potential problems in other papers; in fact, this is a standard part in *any* scientific paper to point out what is at stake: if Hauser had been right, much of what had been written before would need to be reinterpreted. I'm rather confident that I'm competent to read a scientific paper, and if you have doubts about what Gallup's actual criticisms were, feel free to contact him. I'm pretty sure that he will tell you that the tamarins didn't show what he considered as evidence for mirror recognition in chimps. The extra commentary section was a good idea. Ravpy8 (talk) 02:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ravpy8, your competence to read a scientific paper is not in question; rather, this is a question of place and forum. Wikipedia has a very strong policy on original research in the humanities sense -- that is to say, interpretations of primary sources; there are very good reasons for not printing the judgments and interpretations of individual editors, but only such opinions and summaries as have actually been published. This, along with the stringent requirement not to make arguments one way or another in the text of the article proper (the neutrality policy) are needed to make this an encyclopedia where most educated people can edit and discuss on an even footing. Your presentation places particular emphasis on one aspect of Gallup's critique over the other portions; the Boston Globe places the emphasis rather differently. I read 3 distinct criticisms, and I do not consider it my place as a Wikipedia editor to weigh the relative importance of each point and place that judgment in our article.

As an aside, if I were so judging, I would say as a student of science that what's important here is not the relative weight of each portion of the argument, but the fact that a challenge was raised and, upon taking cognizance of the criticism, the results could not be replicated, and therefore the part of the criticism - that portion which challenged the scientific result, was on target. If I held the standpoint of searching for signs of possible misconduct, I would say that the most important part of the criticism was that a peer had reviewed the actual videotape and found it lacking in justification for the result claimed. If I were examining from the standpoint of seeking to give the benefit of the doubt to an eminent scientist, I would notice pretty much what you have noted. The standpoint that is important to the reader depends entirely on the reader; we cannot a priori know what particular interpretation may best suit the reader's perspective. I think it's best that we avoid giving such a stamp of our own making to the facts of the case. Best, Ray^Talk 03:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed sentence from Additional Allegations section

First off, I came here to learn about the case. I know nothing about it other than what I've read here, and one content-free mention elsewhere. I am not taking sides. I don't know what happened. I do, however, want wikipedia articles to stick to reasonable standards of quality. I removed the following sentence: "This run-in stands at odds, however, with the fact that Hauser trained a large number of students in the field of animal cognition and moral psychology, many of whom have gone on to careers as professors at major universities (see Educational achievements above). " It is inapproprate for a wikipedia article: unsourced, original research. It also doesn't make any sense: whether his students got good jobs says nothing at all about accusations made by some of his students. A student challenging a professor is a seriously risky thing to do. It also says nothing at all about whether or not he engaged in scientific misconduct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fitzhugh (talk • contribs) 18:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

Can somebody add some detail to this guy's early life - the Wiki article starts with his getting his undergraduate degree at Bucknell. Also, what religion was this guy brought up under? Thanks in advance to anybody who knows.86.151.43.76 (talk) 09:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it common in the en.wiki to mention a person's religion when it has no obvious relevance for his/her biography? 62.152.162.199 (talk) 13:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Common? Yes. Guideline/policy compliant? Not so sure. I know that WP:BLPCAT makes note that categories should not be added unless the person has both self identified and it has some significance. This is not followed at all it seems. In a "well written" bio, it seems that family "backgrounds" usually cover religion as well as ethnicity. Is there some problem with that? I would say that in 90% of bios, the person's religion has zero significance to their notability, ect, however, to answer your question again, probably 90% of bios do seem to cover this aspect of a person's life, especially "fully" written bios, ie, famous persons/presidents, ect. --Threeafterthree (talk) 13:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you would take the time to read the Wiki entry, at the bottom it has a link "Morality without religion". Duh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.43.76 (talk) 15:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what is your point? --Threeafterthree (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His religion and ethnicity are both irrelevant to the cause for his notability. Any connection to a religion or ethnicity can only serve to provide a guilt-by-association with his notoriety. What would the reader learn or take-away if told that Hauser is a Moslem, a Jew, a Baptist, or an atheist? ChronHigherEdReader (talk) 13:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Misconduct material again

It seems that this is material/size of is undue weight in relation to the rest of the bio. I am not trying to discount it or defend it, ect, but wonder if it could be "scaled back". These type of things always seem to take on a life/size/importance of their own :) Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 15:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The usual bloat happened. We wrote about some things in summary style, people disagreed with the summary, and only a painstakingly detailed narrative would satisfy both sides. As far as I'm concerned, it's far from clear that Hauser's lasting notability in the scientific community at large, and hence to history, won't be because of his fraud. Eminent scientists are a couple dozen a generation, but chaired professors at world-class institutions who are caught fabricating data are extremely rare, usually no more than one or two a decade. Such are the dynamics of being caught in a scandal - it's extremely unkind to the perpetrator, but we didn't make these rules, and it's a certainty that the vast majority of the press coverage and commentary on Hauser deal with the scandal. Ray^Talk 15:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article issues

I think the picture in this article should be removed. I suppose its purpose is to identify Hauser, but you can hardly see him in it. It is not a substitute for a proper image of Hauser, and its presence in the article probably makes it less likely that one will be added.

In addition, I think parts of the sections discussing Hauser's alleged scientific misconduct are inappropriate and should be removed, specifically: "This disagreement between Altmann and the reporter over what Altmann said seems curious but one should note that the reporter, Nicolas Wade, is not a disinterested party. His books, such as The Faith Instinct, heavily cite Hauser's work and thus Wade presumably has a stake in Hauser being innocent." That doesn't seem to have a source, and it's inappropriate writing for an encyclopedia for all kinds of reasons, most of which I trust should be obvious. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the liberty of removing the sentence "It should be noted, however, that Vaux and Watumull were working with Hauser after the investigation had begun and thus were not disinterested parties." from the "Other commentary" section. No citations are provided in support of the claim in this sentence, and I (Vaux) have never worked with Hauser before or after the investigation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.60.169 (talk) 00:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Sources Published

The Boston Globe published a news article today "Former Harvard professor Marc Hauser fabricated, manipulated data, US says" detailing the federal report Findings of Research Misconduct about Marc Hauser. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 10:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my. MastCell ^Talk 18:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re-title/merge with Hauser Misconduct article

The article as it stands contains very little about the man but a great deal about his misconduct. What's even worse is that the misconduct issues are neither contextualized nor specified - except for the Tamirn tapes, which are described in the misconduct section and then again in detail in a dedicated subsection of a second section that contains almost exactly the same information as the first! Many of the references are no longer available and/or are merely news stories. Either the man is worth a biographic article on wikipedia or he is not. If he is then the article should contained a BALANCED biography, made up in the usual manner, personal life, academic career, published papers and awards, books etc, controversy, and so on. If this is not that article then it should be renamed as simply The Hauser Scandal or added to another page called "Academic scandals". LookingGlass (talk) 08:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Marc Hauser. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111006150942/http://articles.boston.com/2011-04-21/news/29459892_1_marc-hauser-scientific-misconduct-embattled-harvard to http://articles.boston.com/2011-04-21/news/29459892_1_marc-hauser-scientific-misconduct-embattled-harvard

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marc Hauser. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131228122250/http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20021122.pdf to http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20021122.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:14, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marc Hauser. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://archive.is/20131205235443/http://mdhauser.blog.com/evilicious/ to http://mdhauser.blog.com/evilicious/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Consensus

I have reverted the good faith removal, by Bilby, of a citation to Retraction Watch. Previous discussions at WP:BLPN, WP:RSN, and elsewhere have established that Retraction Watch is a reliable source, and not a SPS. In an effort to reach consensus here, please provide comment(s) about my reversion. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 01:14, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retraction Watch was founded in 2010 as a Wordpress blog, and at that stage it was very much an SPS. They had a lot of success and tried different attempts at funding, (initially donations, which created problems with conflicts of interest, and then a store). In 2013 they picked up a publisher, FutureOfCapitalism.com, and in late 2013 they started asking for donations again with the money going into a blind trust maintained by FutureoOfCapitalism. In 2014 they founded The Center For Scientific Integrity and gained a large grant, and through this they were able to hire an editor. Thus prior to 2013 they were a self-published blog, and after 2013/2014 this changed. Currently we use Retraction Watch twice. Once is as a source for the existence of a book - however, it is not a good source, as it came out before the book was released (we would be much better to use one that confirms that the book was released, rather than that it was intended to be published). That one was from 2013. The second is to provide a source that an article was retracted. That was from 2010, when Retraction Watch was a self published blog. However, we also have a second source in the Boston Globe, which was unquestionably reliable. Given that we shouldn't be using an SPS in a BLP, and that Retraction Watch was an SPS in 2010, it seems best to me just to use the very good Boston Globe article as a source. - Bilby (talk) 00:59, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given that WP:BLPSPS doesn't permit the use of self published sources, Retraction Watch in 2010 was self published (even though it is not now), and that we have a good existing source, I'm inclined to remove the use of Retraction Watch as a source for the claim that Hauser's paper in Cognittion was retracted, and use the Boston Globe article upon which the Retraction Watch piece was based. I'm also inclined to add the Psychiatric Times article, as they quote the editor of Cognition in regard to whether there were issues with Hauser's role there. That way we cover the same core material as Retraction Watch provided while still remaining compliant with BLP. - Bilby (talk) 14:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That seems fair to me. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 12:45, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined.

Hello, respected Editors. I have a conflict of interest with Marc Hauser hence this edit request.

In Introduction Part

It presently says: Marc D. Hauser (born October 25, 1959) is an American evolutionary biologist and a researcher in primate behavior, animal cognition and human behavior found guilty of fabricated and falsified data.

Need to change to: Marc D. Hauser (born October 25, 1959) is an American evolutionary biologist and a researcher in primate behavior, animal cognition and human behavior and neuroscience, and an educator who teaches undergraduate and graduate students, as well K-12 children with disabilities.

Also add this part: Hauser was a professor at Harvard University from 1992- 2011. In 2012, Hauser started consulting with schools that focus on children with disabilities, including those with emotional disabilities due to trauma. In 2013, Hauser started the company Risk-Eraser, providing consulting and software solutions to schools that specialize in helping students with disabilities.

Reason for the change: The present works and engagement of Hauser aren't found anywhere in the article. His misconduct has been discussed in details later in the article.

References supporting change:

https://www.risk-eraser.com https://www.risk-eraser.com/ourteam https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2013/9/27/mark-hauser-publishes-book/ https://www.the-scientist.com/the-nutshell/back-from-the-blacklist-37519

Add a new section Publications

add the following: Hauser's publications since leaving Harvard University and creating the company Risk-Eraser, LLC.

Hauser, M.D. (2013). Cognition: phylogeny, adaptation, and by-products. In: Princeton Guide to Evolution (ed. J. Losos). Princeton, Princeton University Press.

Berwick, R.C Hauser, MD & Tattersall, I (2013). Neanderthal language? Just-so stories take center stage. Frontiers in Language Sciences 4:1-2.

Watumull, J, Hauser, MD & Berwick, RC (2014). Comparative evolutionary approaches to language: on theory and methods. Biolinguistics 8: 120-129.

Watumull, J., Hauser, MD, Roberts, IG & Hornstein, N (2014). On recursion. Frontiers in Language Sciences 4: 1-7.

Watumull, J, & Hauser, MD (2014). Conceptual and empirical problems with game theoretic approaches to language evolution. Frontiers in Psychology 5: 1-4.

Hauser, MD, Yang, C., Berwick, RC, Tattersall, I., Ryan, M., Watumull, J, Chomsky, N & Lewontin, RC (2014). The mystery of language evolution. Frontiers in Language Sciences 5(401): 1-12.

Hauser, MD (2016). Challenges to the what, when, and why? Review of Berwick and Chomsky's “Why only us.” Biolinguistics 10: 1-5.

Arutyunova, K.R., Alexandrov, Y.I. and Hauser, M.D. (2016). Sociocultural influences on moral judgments: East-West, Male-Female, and Young-Old. Frontiers in Psychology, 7: 1-15.

Hauser, M.D. (2017). The essential and inter-related components of an evidence-based IEP: a user’s guide. Teaching Exceptional Children, JULY/AUGUST, 420-428.

Hauser, M.D & Watumull, J. (2017). The universal generative faculty: the source of our expressive power in language, mathematics, morality, music and technology. Journal of Neurolinguistics: Special Issue on Evolution 43: 78-94.

Hauser, M.D., Berwick, R.C., Watumull, J. and Chomsky, N. (2016). Dogs process associations, not lexical or prosodic information. Science, September 13, 2016, online.

Hauser, M.D. (2017). Of mice and men, nature and nurture, and a few red herrings. Commentary on "The evolution of general intelligence." Behavioral and Brain Sciences 40.

Hauser, M.D. (2018). The mind of a goal achiever: Using mental contrasting and implementation intentions to achieve better outcomes in general and special education. Mind, Brain and Education 12(3): 102-109.

Hauser, M.D. (2019). Patience! Assessing and strengthening self-control. Frontiers in Psychology 4(25): 1-8.

Froesel, M., Goudard, Q., Hauser, M., Gacoin, M. and Ben Hamed, S. (2020). Automated video-based heart rate tracking for the anesthetized and behaving monkey. Nature 10(17940): 1-11.

Hauser, M.D. (2021). How early life adversity transforms the learning brain. Mind, Brain & Education. 15(1): 35-47.

Mathilda Froesel, Maëva Gacoin, Simon Clavagnier, Marc Hauser, Quentin Goudard, Suliann Ben Hamed; Neural bases of audio-visual integration of socially meaningful information in macaques.

Also, in the external link section, please add URL of Risk-Eraser, LLC [2] ThatsMeInTheCrowd (talk) 04:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: This is probably a case of potential whitewashing and PR. Denied. Quetstar (talk) 05:15, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request Second Consideration

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hello, respected Editors. I have a conflict of interest with Marc Hauser hence this edit request.

In Introduction Part

It presently says: Marc D. Hauser (born October 25, 1959) is an American evolutionary biologist and a researcher in primate behavior, animal cognition and human behavior found guilty of fabricated and falsified data.

Need to change to: Marc D. Hauser (born October 25, 1959) is an American evolutionary biologist and a researcher in primate behavior, animal cognition and human behavior and neuroscience, and an educator who teaches undergraduate and graduate students, as well K-12 children with disabilities.

Also add this part: Hauser was a professor at Harvard University from 1992- 2011. In 2012, Hauser started consulting with schools that focus on children with disabilities, including those with emotional disabilities due to trauma. In 2013, Hauser started the company Risk-Eraser, providing consulting and software solutions to schools that specialize in helping students with disabilities.

Reason for the change: The present works and engagement of Hauser aren't found anywhere in the article. His misconduct has been discussed in details later in the article.

References supporting change:

https://www.risk-eraser.com https://www.risk-eraser.com/ourteam https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2013/9/27/mark-hauser-publishes-book/ https://www.the-scientist.com/the-nutshell/back-from-the-blacklist-37519

Add a new section Publications