From: glen mccready
To: Dead Beef <0xdeadbeef@substance.abuse.blackdown.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 1995 16:37:33 -0400
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 1995 13:05:02 -0400
From: Keith Bostic <bostic@CS.Berkeley.EDU>
To: /dev/null@python.bostic.com
Subject: Thomas writes ``The Carnegie Mellon "Cyberporn" Scandal Grows''
Forwarded-by: Wendell Craig Baker <wbaker@splat.baker.com>
[Jim Thomas is a professor of sociology/criminal justice at
Northern Illinois University. He is also co-editor of Cu Digest.
Homepage: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~jthomas
E-mail: jthomas@sun.soci.niu.edu
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1995 23:22:02 CDT
From: Jim Thomas <jthomas@sun.soci.niu.edu>
The research improprieties of the Carnegie Mellon "Cyberporn" study
are inexorably taking on the proportions of a major scandal. Not only
was the research done in its name a classic exercise in deception and
duplicity, but--as Brock Meeks reports in the July 13 issue of
Cyberwire Dispatch [``Porn-O-Plenty'']--evidence continues to mount
of fraudulent data gathering procedures.
As reported in CuD 7.58, the Carnegie Mellon study purported to be a
study of Usenet "pornographic" images and BBS file description lists.
The intellectual content of the study has been shattered by the
Hoffman/Novak and other critiques (see
http://www2000.ogsm.vanderbilt.edu), and the ethical lapses extend
beyond minor goofs to constitute a significant breach of
ethics (see CuD #7.58).
In another forum, a poster contacted CMU and learned that:
---begin quote--
researchers are held accountable to Title 45 CFR Part 689,
as printed in the Federal Register Vol. 52, No. 126, Wed,
July 1, 1987, p 24468.
I went to the USC law library and photocopied the referenced
page in the Federal Register. It states in section 689.1
General policies and responsibilities that:
(a) "Misconduct" means (1) fabrication, falsification,
plagiarism, or other serious deviation from accepted
practices in proposing, carrying out, or reporting results
from research; (2) material failure to comply with Federal
requirements for protection of researchers, human subjects,
or the public or for ensuring the welfare of laboratory
animals; or (3) failure to meet other material legal
requirements governing research.
---end quote---
A more recent version of the NSF misconduct section reads:
45 C.F.R. s 689.1
s 689.1 General policies and responsibilities.
(a) "Misconduct" means
(1) Fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or other
serious deviation from accepted practices in proposing,
carrying out, or reporting results from activities funded
by NSF; or
(2) Retaliation of any kind against a person who reported
or provided information about suspected or alleged
misconduct and who has not acted in bad
faith.
...........
Source: 56 FR 22287, May 14, 1991
It doesn't take a close reading of the Georgetown Law Journal article
in which the Carnegie Mellon study appeared to realize that procedural
improprieties occurred. Lack of informed consent, questions about how
system user Usenet reading habits were obtained, and other problems
mar the study. Worse, revelations about the principle investigator,
Martin Rimm, cast serious doubt on the credibility and integrity both
of the study and of all those involved with it. As Brock Meeks reports
below, it appears that Rimm acknowledges that he has self-published a
volume entitle "The Pornographer's Handbook." It also appears that
Rimm was less than honest with his research subjects, violating a
cardinal research rule against deception.
It appears that Rimm "went native," not only failing to tell Thomas
that he, Rimm, was researching the BBS, but also trying to tell him
how to organize his files (file organization was a key part of the
Carnegie Mellon "analysis"): This week, Mike Godwin interviewed
Robert Thomas, and reports that Thomas told him the following:
That Martin Rimm was a member of the Amateur Action BBS, that he
quarrelled publicly and privately with Robert and Carleen Thomas
about how they ran their BBS (among other things, he wanted them
to change the way their BBS software kept track of downloads),
that his messages to them after they refused to comply with his
"suggestions" grew angry and threatening, that he declared
publicly that he would not renew his membership at Amateur
Action, and that he *did* renew his membership in February of
this year.
As additional information emerges, questions about the study's
problems increase, and evidence of misconduct and fraud grow. If the
Carnegie Mellon study is based on systematically fraudulent
data-gather practices, then the regrettable conclusion is that
Carnegie Mellon has engaged in research misconduct. That CMU continues
to stand by the study as its own further tarnished the reputation of
all faculty and students associated with the institution. That it
remains silent on the challenges to substantial and growing criticisms
of the study further leads to the sad, but inescapable, conclusion
that CMU is a research institution that feels that it is above the
standards that the rest of us attempt to follow in human subjects
research.