Topic 1043 [media]: TIME, Martin Rimm and the CYBERPORN scandal #327 of 954: jim thomas (jthomas) Sat Jul 15 '95 (00:58) 203 lines Rimm's major faculty advisor has sent out the CMU release to at least one person inquiring about his role in the study. lizabeth asked what I thought about the CMU release: >The following is the university's statement about the study, >"Marketing Pornography on the Information Superhighway," by Marty ^^^^^^^^^ >Rimm. ^^^^^^ >Provost Paul Christiano already has informally sought and >received advice from some faculty members about the study >conducted by undergraduate student Marty Rimm and published by ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >the Georgetown Law Journal. The brevity of the Carnegie Mellon response to critics of the "Carnegie Mellon" study belies the rather glaring subtext: CMU is now distancing itself and its faculty from the study by calling it the work of an undergraduate student. It would be unfortunate if the CMU administration plans to hold up Rimm as the primary culprit in this study, especially when there are so many equally deserving participants upon whom to focus: 1) The wording shifts responsibility from Carnegie Mellon and involved faculty to an undergraduate student. Because of CMU's initial association with the study and the Georgetown Law Journal article, the statement is disingenuous. There is absolutely no room for doubt: Carnegie Mellon accepted the label of "Carnegie Mellon" study, acknowledged the label, and has had ample opportunity to disassociate from the label but did not. At least, not until criticisms of the ethics of the study emerged. That this has now become the "Marty Rimm" study is a questionable shift that appears to reduce fundamental lapses by CMU faculty and administrators to little more than the gaffs of an undergraduate. 2) It is quite possible, even likely, that few people at CMU, to include those listed as members of the "research team," had sufficient information about the study to make an informed judgment on the deceptive and possibly fraudulent data gathering. However, this does not absolve them from responsibility for sharing some of the burden that now seems to be placed on Rimm alone. The glaring intellectual and ethical problems in the GLJ article were immediately evident, frequent, and incontrovertible. If those at CMU who claimed the study as their own did not read the GLJ article before claiming association, they are recklessly negligent. If they did read the article and did not identify or recognize the numerous intellectual and ethical lapses, they were recklessly negligent. If they did read the artcle, catch the flaws, and still accepted the study as their own, then, they are as implicated in misconduct as the principal investigator and his team. 3) It is well established that an academic advisor is ultimately responsible for assuring that the research of the student meets accepted intellectual, ethical, and other guidelines. In this case, the supervisor was Professor Marvin Sirbu. From all accounts, Sirbu was closely involved in the project from inception through completion. One source close to the study claimed that he read a draft of the GLJ article in November, 1994, and it was "poorly written, lurid in tone, and I thought it was an undergraduate effort." If the source is accurate, the faculty supervisor had a strong hand in shaping the final version. From remarks Sirbu has made to the media, it would appear that he had read a near-complete version of the final article, if not the final product itself. Because of his close involvement as faculty advisor at all stages of the study, Sirbu should be expected to be familiar with the ethical dimensions of the research methodology. In fact, this appears to be the case. One person initially involved in the study indicated that he asked Sirbu if acquisition and use of the CMU computer users' Usenet reading habits was legal. Sirbu claimed it was, because the initial login screen that appears when users logged in permitted it: This system is for the use of authorized users only. Unauthorized use may be monitored and recorded. In the course of such monitoring or through system maintenance, the activities of authorized users may be monitored. By using this system you expressly consent to such monitoring. Whatever the need for monitoring a system for system maintenance, and whatever the justification for a system administrators' use of system statistics for serving authorized users, collection of system data for third parties is neither authorized nor justified by the opening login screen, especially if that data details individual users' private, and potentially sensitive, Usenet reading habits. 4) Brock Meeks reported in the July 13 issue of CyberWire Dispatch that CMU statistics professor George Duncan, described by Meeks and others as a "privacy expert," saw nothing wrong with the study's methodology. Whether Duncan's review included a review of the BBS methodology isn't clear. However, one close source claimed that Rimm and Duncan did meet at least once without Sirbu present to discuss the methodology. If Duncan reviewed and then approved of the methodology as ultimately described and used for the study, he, too, should share the same scrutiny as Rimm. 5) The Georgetown Law Journal published a paper that, although not peer reviewed, should have sounded a warning bell to the would-be lawyers who should surely be sufficiently aware of the ethical obligations of a professional toward clients, whether in law or any other in which trust, privacy, and protection are crucial. That none apparently raised any questions is astonishing. 6) The GLJ invited three commentaries from established attorneys. Catharine MacKinnon praised the study effusively, calling it a "landmark study," finding its findings on computer pornography in real life "indelibly clear," and praising the vision of the "Carnegie Mellon research team." Anne Wells Branscomb writes: Indeed, the CMU study is to be commended for offering a methodology for the academically rigorous tracking of pornographic images (GLJ: 1957). While not as effusive as the others about the study, Carlin Meyer also finds much of value in the study, but fails to recognize the immediately obvious flaws. Each commentator refers to the "Carnegie Mellon study," a reference that CMU apparently only now questions. 7) The deans, professors, and others listed as members of the research team have not yet, to my knowledge, stepped forward to respond to their alleged participation. If there was, in fact, a research team, all those listed as members should also be placed under the same critical microscope as Rimm. *************** If we take Carnegie Mellon's statement that it will form a committee to investigate allegations at its word, this would seem to be an honorable first step to clarifying some of the issues raised about the procedures of the "cyberporn" study. Carnegie Mellon's research guidelines are consistent with those of other institutions. They begin: Office of the President Carnegie-Mellon University Organization Announcement No. 320 February 23, 1990 Subject: Policy For Handling Alleged Misconduct In Research At Carnegie Mellon University To: Provost, Academic Deans and Department Heads, and Faculty PREAMBLE Carnegie Mellon University is responsible for the integrity of research conducted at the University. As a community of scholars, in which truth and integrity are fundamental, the University must establish procedures for the investigation of allegations of misconduct of research with due care to protect the rights of those accused, those making the allegations, and the University. Furthermore, federal regulations require the University to have explicit procedures for addressing incidents in which there are allegations of misconduct in research. INTRODUCTION This document outlines the procedures to be followed when misconduct in research is alleged at Carnegie Mellon. As defined by the National Science Foundation.1 "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 the 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." If the inquiry focuses solely on Martin Rimm and fails to include the drama's entire ensemble, it would not satisfy either the spirit or the letter of the guidelines. ************** Choosing an ethical course is not always either obvious or easy. A decade ago, Mario Brajuha began the research for his Phd dissertation. His project, the social organization of restaurant workers in New York City, seemed a harmless enough participant observation ethnography. During the data collection, there was a fire in the restaurant that the police suspected was arson. They demanded, and then subpoenaed, Brajuha's fieldnotes on the outside chance that he might have recorded evidence of a disgruntled worker. Brajuha refused to surrender his material, because he had promised his subjects confidentiality. He was jailed for contempt of court. Although he was not required by law or guidelines to sacrifice his freedom for his pledge, he felt that it was the only honorable and ethical course. Everybody errs, and researchers are no exception. Sometimes, explicit ethical guidelines are of little help in determining a proper course of action. The primary ethical prescription that most of us follow is: Protect your subjects. Do not deceive them, and do not put them at risk. Mario Brajuha demonstrated how seriously some scholars take that simple maxim.