He declined to comment for this article.

But in the three years between the start of the investigation and the official announcement of the University’s findings, Hauser made preliminary efforts to clear his name.

In 2008, aware that he was under investigation, Hauser traveled with two of his research collaborators to Cayo Santiago, Puerto Rico to replicate two of the studies called into question.

Two years later in July 2010, a biological research journal called The Proceedings of the Royal Society B published one of the replications, which confirmed the original findings of the 2007 corrected study, “Rhesus monkeys correctly read the goal-relevant gestures of a human agent.”

Then, in April 2011, the journal Science published a replication that Hauser performed in 2008 of the other corrected study called into question by the investigation. Again, Hauser confirmed the findings of his original study.

Scientists in the field have debated how far these replications go in vindicating Hauser.

In an editorial posted on the science blog RealClearScience last Tuesday, Pierre Pica, a linguist and Research Fellow at the National Center of Scientific Research in Paris, said the replications of Hauser’s studies “call into question the accusations of fabrication and falsification.”

Others have called the replications irrelevant to Hauser’s case, both because they were conducted by Hauser himself and because they do not prove an absence of misconduct in the original study.

“Ultimately it’s not a question of whether he can replicate his findings—it’s whether other people can,” said Gordon G. Gallup Jr., a psychology professor at University at Albany, State University of New York who has publicly questioned Hauser’s body of research.

“They need to be independently replicated by other competent scientists in the field.”

A ‘PREMATURE’ DISCUSSION

Carey said commenting on Hauser’s situation at the present juncture is unproductive.

“Each of us has heard rumors, and each of us has our own opinions about what Hauser probably did or did not do,” Carey said. “But those opinions are really worth nothing. The due process goes through the Committee on Professional Conduct and ORI.”

Members of the Psychology Department have not commented on their colleague, seconding Carey’s belief that speculation is useless until the federal investigation releases its findings.

“First, I have no knowledge of the facts of this case to contribute to the discussion,” wrote psychology professor Elizabeth S. Spelke in an email to The Crimson. “Second, the investigation of Professor Hauser is ongoing, making any responses to your questions premature.”

—Staff writer Julia L. Ryan can be reached at jryan@college.harvard.edu.

—Staff writer Kevin J. Wu can be reached at kwu@college.harvard.edu.