XPost: co.general, co.cos.ads, co.consumers   
   XPost: co.ads   
   From: sdowney@chapman.edu   
      
   He was a graduate student who seemingly had it all: drive, a big   
   idea and the financial backing to pay for a sprawling study to   
   test it.   
      
   In 2012, as same-sex marriage advocates were working to build   
   support in California, Michael LaCour, a political science   
   researcher at the University of California, Los Angeles, asked a   
   critical question: Can canvassers with a personal stake in an   
   issue — in this case, gay men and women — actually sway voters’   
   opinions in a lasting way?   
      
   He would need an influential partner to help frame, interpret   
   and place into context his findings — to produce an   
   authoritative scientific answer. And he went to one of the   
   giants in the field, Donald P. Green, a Columbia University   
   professor and co-author of a widely used text on field   
   experiments.   
      
   “I thought it was a very ambitious idea, so ambitious that it   
   might not be suitable for a graduate student,” said Dr. Green,   
   who signed on as a co-author of Mr. LaCour’s study in 2013. “But   
   it’s such an important question, and he was very passionate   
   about it.”   
      
   Last week, their finding that gay canvassers were in fact   
   powerfully persuasive with people who had voted against same-sex   
   marriage — published in December in Science, one of the world’s   
   leading scientific journals — collapsed amid accusations that   
   Mr. LaCour had misrepresented his study methods and lacked the   
   evidence to back up his findings.   
      
   On Tuesday, Dr. Green asked the journal to retract the study   
   because of Mr. LaCour’s failure to produce his original data.   
   Mr. LaCour declined to be interviewed, but has said in   
   statements that he stands by the findings.   
      
   The case has shaken not only the community of political   
   scientists but also public trust in the way the scientific   
   establishment vets new findings. It raises broad questions about   
   the rigor of rules that guide a leading academic’s oversight of   
   a graduate student’s research and of the peer review conducted   
   of that research by Science.   
      
   New, previously unreported details have emerged that suggest   
   serious lapses in the supervision of Mr. LaCour’s work. For   
   example, Dr. Green said he had never asked Mr. LaCour to detail   
   who was funding their research, and Mr. LaCour’s lawyer has told   
   Science that Mr. LaCour did not pay participants in the study   
   the fees he had claimed.   
      
   Dr. Green, who never saw the raw data on which the study was   
   based, said he had repeatedly asked Mr. LaCour to post the data   
   in a protected databank at the University of Michigan, where   
   they could be examined later if needed. But Mr. LaCour did not.   
      
   “It’s a very delicate situation when a senior scholar makes a   
   move to look at a junior scholar’s data set,” Dr. Green said.   
   “This is his career, and if I reach in and grab it, it may seem   
   like I’m boxing him out.”   
      
   But Dr. Ivan Oransky, A co-founder of “Retraction Watch,” which   
   first published news of the allegations and Dr. Green’s   
   retraction request, said, “At the end of the day he decided to   
   trust LaCour, which was, in his own words, a mistake.”   
      
   Many of the most contentious particulars of how the study was   
   conducted are not yet known, and Mr. LaCour said he would   
   produce a “definitive” accounting by the end of next week.   
   Science has published an expression of concern about the study   
   and is considering retracting it, said Marcia McNutt, editor in   
   chief.   
      
   “Given the negative publicity that has now surrounded this paper   
   and the concerns that have been raised about its   
   irreproducibility, I think it would be in Michael LaCour’s best   
   interest to agree to a retraction of the paper as swiftly as   
   possible,” she said in an interview on Friday. “Right now he’s   
   going to have such a black cloud over his head that it’s going   
   to haunt him for the rest of his days.”   
      
   Only three months ago he posted on Facebook that he would soon   
   be moving across country for his “dream job” as a professor at   
   Princeton. That future could now be in doubt. A Princeton   
   spokesman, Martin Mbugua, noting that Mr. LaCour was not yet an   
   employee there, said, “We will review all available information   
   and determine the next steps.”   
      
   Critics said the intense competition by graduate students to be   
   published in prestigious journals, weak oversight by academic   
   advisers and the rush by journals to publish studies that will   
   attract attention too often led to sloppy and even unethical   
   research methods. The now disputed study was covered by The New   
   York Times, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal,   
   among others.   
      
   “You don’t get a faculty position at Princeton by publishing   
   something in the Journal Nobody-Ever-Heard-Of,” Dr. Oransky   
   said. Is being lead author on a big study published in Science   
   “enough to get a position in a prestigious university?” he   
   asked, then answered: “They don’t care how well you taught. They   
   don’t care about your peer reviews. They don’t care about your   
   collegiality. They care about how many papers you publish in   
   major journals.”   
      
   The details that have emerged about the flaws in the research   
   have prompted heated debate among scientists and policy makers   
   about how to reform the current system of review and   
   publication. This is far from the first such case.   
      
   The scientific community’s system for vetting new findings,   
   built on trust, is poorly equipped to detect deliberate   
   misrepresentations. Faculty advisers monitor students’ work, but   
   there are no standard guidelines governing the working   
   relationship between senior and junior co-authors.   
      
   The reviewers at journals may raise questions about a study’s   
   methodology or data analysis, but rarely have access to the raw   
   data itself, experts said. They do not have time; they are   
   juggling the demands of their own work, and reviewing is   
   typically unpaid.   
      
   In cases like this one — with the authors on opposite sides of   
   the country — that trust allowed Mr. LaCour to work with little   
   supervision.   
      
   “It is simply unacceptable for science to continue with people   
   publishing on data they do not share with others,” said Uri   
   Simonsohn, an associate professor at the Wharton School of the   
   University of Pennsylvania. “Journals, funding agencies and   
   universities must begin requiring that data be publicly   
   available.”   
      
   Mr. LaCour met Dr. Green at a summer workshop on research   
   methods in Ann Arbor, Mich., that is part education, part   
   pilgrimage for young scientists. Dr. Green is a co-author of the   
   textbook “Field Experiments: Design, Analysis and   
   Interpretation.” He has published more than 100 papers, on   
   topics like campaign finance and party affiliation, and is one   
   of the most respected proponents of rigorous analysis and data   
   transparency in social science.   
      
   He is also known to offer younger researchers a hand up.   
      
   “If it is an interesting question, Don is interested,” said   
   Brian Nosek, a professor of psychology at the University of   
   Virginia who has collaborated with Dr. Green.   
      
   Mr. LaCour, whose résumé mentions a stint as the University of   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)