In July, Professor Marc D. Hauser, former co-director of the Mind, Brain, and Behavior program at Harvard, announced his resignation from the University. Hauser was previously found “solely responsible” for eight instances of scientific misconduct following a University internal investigation, which prompted a yearlong leave of absence. Despite the findings, Hauser was allowed to retain his tenured professorship and leadership of the Cognitive Evolution Lab. In April, the Psychology Department barred him from teaching in the next academic year, though not from research. An ongoing federal investigation by the Office of Research Integrity may still be underway to determine if Hauser misused federal grants to commit scientific misconduct.

In April, we argued that Harvard should have taken a more aggressive stance in response to the findings of the investigative committee and fired Hauser. Hauser's prohibition from further research and teaching would have been a logical consequence of his actions. It would have forcefully upheld the imperative for honesty and accuracy in the sciences. Tenure, a privilege given to distinguished professors, is no shield for academic misconduct.

As such, despite measure of closure that Hauser’s resignation brings to this situation, it remains that the University should have taken stronger and earlier disciplinary action against him. Harvard is a preeminent research institution, and scientific results sourced here are widely trusted and respected. This benefits every academic on campus, from undergraduates to professors. Even though grant money, Ph.D. candidates, and postdoctoral fellows may keep flowing to Harvard programs, the intangible damage to the University’s scientific community is unacceptable. By firing Hauser, Harvard would have sent a firm message that academic dishonesty is not tolerated. In contrast, Hauser's resignation is an evasion of full culpability and deemphasizes the gravity of his actions. Allowing Hauser to save face and graciously depart his position offers little recourse for the multitude of scientific malfeasances that were committed.

Therefore, moving forward, the University should regularize the process of faculty discipline in cases of academic dishonesty. This will make the process of removing tenure faster and less personal. Furthermore, the consequences of these proceedings should adequately reflect the nature of the misconduct committed. Harvard undergraduates are held to high standards regarding academic discipline—professors with positions of influence should be equally, if not more, accountable for their deeds. By refusing to take bold action and instead allowing for a willing resignation, the University has downplayed the severity of his academic dishonesty.

In addition to standardizing the faculty discipline process, the University should also commit to making its internal investigations more transparent, if findings are negative. We applaud the Vice Provost for Research’s decision to form a Committee on Confidentiality in Research Misconduct Proceedings. This committee was announced almost a year ago, and we eagerly await its recommendations. We hope they include that the University should make public the findings of internal committee investigations, assuming a guilty verdict is reached—before The Boston Globe does.

Harvard's lack of decisive action throughout this situation permitted Hauser to evade full responsibility and delayed the public acknowledgement of his research's inaccuracy. Harvard’s passivity could have allowed tainted findings on his cotton-top tamarind monkey experiments to continue to mislead the scientific community. The University sustained the verdict on Hauser's misconducts in the same fashion that he committed them: behind closed doors. This issue of a lack of transparency is not unique to our institution. However, no matter what the school, transparency is an integral part of maintaining an open and well-informed academic environment. All universities must commit to maintaining transparency regarding faculty academic integrity, particularly in instances where the results can affect the course of scientific literature and research.